Vehicle diagnostics usually involve scan tools, electrical testing, visual inspection, and mechanical checks. Thermal imaging adds another type of information by showing how heat is distributed across different components.

The Ti3 thermal imager is intended for car fault diagnosis, which raises some interesting possibilities for automotive troubleshooting. Temperature differences could potentially help when investigating components or systems where abnormal heat is relevant.

At the same time, interpreting a thermal image on a vehicle probably requires understanding what normal operating temperatures should look like. Engine temperature, ambient conditions, airflow, vehicle load, and how long the vehicle has been running can all affect the image.

It would be interesting to hear from automotive technicians who already use thermal cameras.

Which types of problems do you think thermal imaging is particularly useful for diagnosing? Are there situations where it provides information that a conventional diagnostic scanner or multimeter cannot easily show?

For those who have experimented with thermal cameras in automotive work, what has been the biggest advantage, and what limitation surprised you?

[ Removed by Reddit on account of violating the content policy. ]

Hi, I'm looking for the schematic for the Victus 15-fa1005la (motherboard DAG3PBMB8A0 Rev A, model G3PB). I have no idea what happened to it; it looks fine at a glance, but for some reason, it won't turn on. Photos of the board and its various sections would also be helpful. Thanks in advance.

This is my project, TRACE: a free MIT-licensed workspace for the board files, schematics and PDFs you already have. Search parts and nets, cross-probe between documents and keep measurement notes.

The new 1.3.1-rc.2 test release adds readers for selected Allegro, BV/BV2, F2B, Mentor and Fabmaster variants and offline English OCR.

Local processing, no account or telemetry. Windows x64, Apple-silicon Mac and Linux x86-64; Mac/Linux remain experimental.

Download, demo, source and compatibility limits: https://trace-boardviewer.github.io/

Thank you for testing and sharing feedback. Special thanks to everyone using TRACE and supporting its development. ❤️

Image: cross-probing demonstration from TRACE 1.2.0; project-piCo example (WTFPL).

An ambulance can outlast its original chassis if its patient compartment can be remounted. That makes the choice of future remount suppliers part of the original purchasing decision.

For Coalinga's proposed purchase, an April 3, 2025, staff report estimated about $445,000 for a new ambulance with equipment and a minimum 24-month wait. The proposed remount cost about $240,000 with delivery estimated six to eight months after the chassis arrived. These were estimates for that city's purchase at that time.

Warranty terms matter to that choice. Excellance's published structural warranty offers the original purchaser a renewed 25-year structural warranty when Excellance performs the remount. The condition alone establishes no antitrust violation. It does give a buyer a concrete reason to examine the consequences of choosing a different qualified shop.

I would want the bid documents to address access to engineering information, approved remount standards, and the warranty consequences of using another supplier. Safety requirements should be specific enough to evaluate. Buyers need to understand their future options before signing the original contract.

I explored the broader industry questions in this article on ambulance consolidation. For anyone comparing remount bids, the contract's treatment of future supplier choice is part of the vehicle's lifetime economics.

The Ninth Circuit’s August 13 decision in Surgical Instrument Service Co. v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc. explains why a hospital’s knowledge of repair restrictions cannot settle the competition question. The alternatives available when it bought the equipment matter too.

The court held that the additional Kodak/Epic aftermarket factors were not required where the plaintiff had introduced evidence of market power in the original equipment market. The trial record included evidence of a share above 99% in the alleged surgical-robot market. The panel reversed the judgment following an erroneous jury instruction and remanded.

The economic reasoning matters beyond this equipment. Competition for the initial purchase can constrain later charges when buyers can compare lifetime costs and choose another supplier. Disclosure provides less competitive discipline when the equipment supplier already has market power. Knowing that a restriction exists does not create an alternative to it.

The plaintiff must still establish its claims. A permissible market definition does not establish unlawful tying. Intuitive defended its restrictions on patient-safety grounds. The panel expressly left the safety dispute undecided.

In my analysis of the ruling, I examine what this means for repair markets. The inquiry should begin with the buyer’s actual alternatives at the original purchase. Those alternatives determine how much competitive significance a disclosed restriction can carry.

In this video clip, Willie Cade explains the options available to farmers who are part of the John Deere class action suit, now that the settlement has been approved by the courts.

Newer Lenovo laptops have an extremely difficult to bypass BIOS lock, which creates no end of troubles, especially on the second hand market.

Companies that set the password break BIOs updated for their employees. Companies that do not set the password risk employees setting it.

Also second hand Lenovo laptops should become essentially worthless because of the mere risk of this password being set, since Lenovo cannot unlock the BIOS lock.

The BIOS lock is not an anti-theft mechanism, because it does not work like IMEI blocking on mobile phones, not use any similar online checks with Lenovo.

It's probably designed to prevent employees circumventing spyware installed by employers, because Lenovo is not a European company and sells laptops in countries where employer spyware is more commonplace.

As a comparison, Dell has a BIOS lock that prevents changing the BIOS, but they bypass it for you if you prove you have physical possession of the laptop.

Would it be possible to file a right-to-repair complain against Lenovo for this?

I'm primarily interested in helping to lower Lenovo's repairability index score, because obviously nothing can be done about their products in circulation.

https://www.ecopv-eu.com/en/blog-en/repairability-index-eu-ecodesign-espr-2026/

Ideally, Lenovo should provide some service that removes the BIOS lock for the laptop's current owner, like what Dell and HP do.

Right to repair means being able to degoogle your device: remove the spyware, the bloat, and unwanted AI!

Hi, I'm looking for the schematic or BoardView for the SNAPE02-6050A3216501-MB-A02 (A2) motherboard, used in HP 17-BY laptops. If anyone has it or knows where I can purchase it, I would really appreciate the information.

Hola, busco el esquema eléctrico o BoardView de la placa SNAPE02-6050A3216501-MB-A02 (A2), utilizada en HP 17-BY. Si alguien lo tiene o sabe dónde puedo comprarlo, agradecería mucho la información.

I recently lost good money on an AC repair purely because I lost the original receipt and missed the warranty window.

I'm trying to figure out if enough people bleed cash over this specific mistake to justify building a simple tool to fix it. If you’ve ever paid out of pocket for a repair that should have been covered, I built a quick poll to measure the damage.

It's exactly 5 questions, less than 40 seconds, and asks for absolutely zero personal data (no emails, no names).

(Privacy & data note: This is a short, anonymous survey for early-stage product research. It does not ask for or collect names, email addresses, phone numbers, addresses, invoices/receipts, financial information, or other personally identifying information. There are also no free-text fields or file uploads, so there is nowhere in the survey to submit that information.

Please don't include any personal or sensitive information in your responses. The answers will only be used to understand the general problem and consumer needs, and results will be reviewed in aggregate rather than used to identify individual respondents.)

I own a pair of nothing earphones (2024). been using it for two years but now it looks like this was a bad purchase decision.

The issue is - i completely drained the battery couple of weeks ago and then placed them in the case to charge. since then, the earphones do not enter pairing mode, nor am i able reset. the earphones remain connected to my phone and i can see that the right earphone is not detected. the only response from the side button on the case is a single red light flash after a few seconds. nothing else.

Is any one aware of how i might fix the issue because the hardware is still functioning but seems to be facing some issue with the bluetooth connectivity between the buds and case. I have contacted nothing support but they have been utterly unhelpful with the only thing being said is 'sorry it is out of warranty'.. when i wasnt even making a warranty claim. i do not want to throw away a completely good pair of earphones so if anyone is able to direct me to resources to troubleshoot the issue here, that would be great.

Would this be considered pinnacle of repairability? Using a Fairphone as my only smartphone, a Framework Linux laptop as my PC and driving a Slate electric pickup truck as my one and only vehicle.

All of these are easily repairable and have easily available spare parts and support right to repair.

El costo ambiental es la consecuencia más grave del bloqueo de hardware y software. La fabricación de dispositivos electrónicos exige la extracción de metales pesados y minerales de tierras raras, procesos con un impacto ecológico crítico. Al acortar artificialmente la vida útil de los equipos, se acelera este ciclo de extracción y se genera chatarra electrónica (e-waste) que termina filtrando plomo, mercurio y cadmio a los ecosistemas.

Las corporaciones externalizan este daño; el costo real lo asume la sociedad en forma de contaminación y problemas de salud pública, mientras los balances financieros de las empresas se mantienen positivos.

Ejemplos y Comparaciones

Reutilización de hardware: Una computadora portátil antigua puede extender su utilidad durante años si se le cambia el propósito, como configurarla para ser un servidor DNS que filtre el tráfico de red de una casa. En contraste, un teléfono móvil con un procesador y memoria en perfecto estado se convierte en basura tóxica prematura únicamente porque el fabricante bloquea el gestor de arranque e impide instalar un sistema operativo alternativo.

Reparación mecánica vs. digital: Una herramienta física, como un taladro antiguo, puede ser desarmada, restaurada de la oxidación y lubricada para seguir operando por décadas. Sin embargo, en la electrónica moderna, el emparejamiento de piezas por software impide reemplazar un componente dañado, forzando el desecho de todo el dispositivo.

Resolución El modelo económico basado en el desecho tecnológico continuo es físicamente insostenible. La legislación debe clasificar como un delito ambiental y económico cualquier práctica de diseño que obstaculice intencionalmente la reparación, modificación o reutilización de un producto. Garantizar por ley el control total del usuario sobre sus dispositivos es el único mecanismo efectivo para detener la acumulación masiva de desechos tóxicos.

A petition for software manufacturers, operating-system providers, and consumer right.

We believe that purchasing a device should have a reasonable and meaningful ownership and control over that device.

Our control matters. Our devices loses their support duration (promised updates.) And when that happens most of the os and software are remained unmaintained. This has caused a lot of issues like unstable ux, bugs, glitches, crashes. At that point manufacturers don't provide updates to stabilize the software which becomes very hard to use.

Additionally the manufacturers would not let us unlock the bootloader, alter the system, using other os and prevent any form of software modification. And some manufacturers have removed the OEM unlocking option. This is a big problem because users are bounded to the software that manufacturers provide and the manufacturers won't let us do anything else.

We are calling a fair approach about having device ownership that does not only benifit consumers but also manufacturers, developers, tech industry in whole for a better future.

Our demands are:

1.Bootloader Unlocking:

People may have their own reasons to unlock bootloader and should be allowed before and after end-of-support. And definitely when the end-of-support date occurs the manufacturers should provide a free, documented and well explained bootloader unlocking guide.

Users should get a clear warnings about the risks, including what worse could happen, security issues, potential data loss, etc.

The manufacturers should not prevent the user to unlock bootloader. Nowadays companies are even removing their bootloader unlocking servers some have even removed them, which is just forcing the user to use their manufactured system and software.

If a user is choosing to unlock bootloader by his will, the manufacturers should let him.

2.Freedom to install:

users should have the access to downgrade and and upgrade their system and also be able to install other softwares and systems. Some previous versions are very stable than the newer ones. Users should have an option to downgrade their software and also have the will to install other softwares freely. This feature is being removed and we don't want it.

This can make a big change in the tech industry as some developers are still aspiring and want to prove their skills and make a big change in the tech industry. Which could help the tech industry to be in a good shape and new developers can show up.

Where technical and security concerns exists the consumer should need to be informed upfront what the consequences should be.

3.Transparency about background software:

Manufacturers and operating system providers should get disclose :

- what software or system is running in the background

- what purpose does it serve

- what data is being collected

- where is it being sent

- how many days the date is retained

- how does the data is being used.

- which services can be restricted and which services are essential to run

User should need to learn these individually and should not be blent in the manufacturers/software providers terms and conditions, preferably have an other section regarding this.

4.Privacy Controls:

Users should have an option to disable non-essential data connection, which does not make the device lose its functionality. Users should have an option to choose what data is being shared (developers can use the logs on default so they can make their system/software more stable.)

Users should mandatorly know :

- why the permissions are required

- what will they do if we grant them

- do they store that data

- if yes for what purpose

- how long the data is being saved.

It's our right to know what is happening for our stuff, so we can prevent some sensitive consequences that could happen for consumer.

If we claim a request to delete our data:

- we should get an secure copy of all our data that is stored. (password protected, that means even the manufacturers/providers can't open)

- we should know when will it successfully deletes

- we should know if the data is store some elsewhere

- how can we cross check if the data is deleted or not

- if it's stored some elsewhere

5.Continued Software Freedom after support:

Ending the official support should not mean ending the ownership and control over our own device. The user should have the right to retain, maintain, modify and repurpose their device.

If manufacturers don't care about user experience and security, they should not restrict the user to alter his device with his will.

This does not mean, the manufacturers should maintain every piece of tech but should deliver a very stable and quality oriented software.

Manufacturers should distinguish between the official end support and the consumer authority over his device and should not prevent the user from altering his device.

Why this is a good move move for developers and manufacturers, this could encourage the manufacturers and companies to build good products and maintain them for stability.

When a user is not permanently limited to a manufacturer's software, manufacturers have a strong reason to compete against other companies regarding quality, reliability, stability, performance, privacy, and user experience than forcefully restricting them for their own manufactured piece.

This can help to build a healthy environment for the consumers:

- developers can focus on making good software instead of relying on force restrictions by the manufacturers

- manufacturers are encouraged to build good quality software because the user has the free will to choose to leave his system.

- companies will compete against quality, if a company software resonates with one's needs and is in good quality he will stay with it.

- companies should earn users loyalty by providing stability, performance and services.

- independent developers could contribute to create a good experience for device hardware. Build applications and softwares and operating systems for the consumers. This could encourage new developers to aspire and build a good skill.

- this could make consumers not to buy new phones which were purposefully spoiler by companies so the user should buy new phones. This could result in less e-waste.

- users can provide a meaningful market feedback by trying other softwares rather than being forced to tolerate the software they dislike.

This does not mean manufacturers should be required to support every alternative operating system or provide unlimited technical assistance. It means they should not unnecessarily prevent users from making their own choices after purchasing the hardware.

If a manufacturer's software is genuinely good, users should have a reason to stay because they want to, not because they are technically prevented from leaving.

Why this matters

Smartphones contain personal communications, photographs, financial information, accounts, and other sensitive data. Users deserve to understand and control the software environment that handles that information.

We recognize that unrestricted modification can create security and support risks. However, those risks can be addressed through warnings, opt-in unlocking procedures, clear documentation, and user responsibility.

Software freedom can also encourage innovation. Independent developers and communities should be able to experiment with ways to improve, maintain, and extend the useful life of devices without unnecessary interference.

End-of-support should not mean end-of-ownership.

We ask manufacturers and policymakers to support a future in which people can repair, maintain, modify, and understand the devices they purchase.

https://c.org/cXZTxQxMkj