Fullscreen HTML5Med Res (??MB)HTML4

Practical Electronics Editorial offices Electron Publishing Tel +61 2 9939 3295 (Australia) Email pe<at>pemag.au Web www.electronpublishing.com Address mail to: Electron Publishing (Australia) PO Box 194, Matraville NSW 2036 Australia Advertising enquiries +61 2 9939 3295 pe<at>pemag.au Editor Nicholas Vinen Publisher Nicholas Vinen Digital subscriptions Stewart Kearn Tel 07918 614662 Online Editor Alan Winstanley Web Systems Kris Thain Production Bao Smith Technical staff Tim Blythman, John Clarke Print subscriptions Practical Electronics Subscriptions PO Box 6337 Bournemouth BH1 9EH Tel 01202 087631 United Kingdom Email pesubs<at>selectps.com Technical enquiries We regret that technical enquiries cannot be answered over the telephone. We are unable to offer any advice on the use, purchase, repair or modification of commercial equipment or the incorporation or modification of designs published in the magazine. Questions about articles or projects should be sent to the editor by email: pe<at>pemag.au Projects and circuits All reasonable precautions are taken to ensure that the advice and data given to readers is reliable. We cannot, however, guarantee it and we cannot accept legal responsibility for it. Some projects and circuits published in Practical Electronics employ voltages that can be lethal. Do not build, test, modify or fix any mains-powered equipment unless you fully understand the safety aspects involved and you use an RCD (GFCI) adaptor. Component supplies Silicon Chip Publications may offer kits or other parts for making our projects, but not in all cases. When kits are not available, readers will need to find and source parts themselves. We advise readers to check that all parts are still available before commencing any project in a back-dated issue. Advertisements Although the proprietors and staff of Practical Electronics take reasonable precautions to protect the interests of readers by ensuring as far as practicable that advertisements are bona fide, the magazine and its publishers cannot give any undertakings in respect of statements or claims made by advertisers, whether these advertisements are printed as part of the magazine, or in inserts. The Publishers regret that under no circumstances will the magazine accept liability for non-receipt of goods ordered, or for late delivery, or for faults in manufacture. Volume 55. No. 05 May 2026 ISSN 2632 573X Editorial Product codes should be specific to the hardware One of the more frustrating aspects of computers and electronics is the way some manufacturers will ‘silently’ change the hardware of a product while keeping the same model name and number. This practice is misleading to consumers and is particularly common in the Wi-Fi and SSD (solid-state drive) markets. For example, you might read a review of the Oceandoor FlameSturgeon 18000X SSD stating that it is exceptionally fast. On that basis, you buy one, install it, and discover that its performance falls well short of expectations. Why? Unbeknownst to you, Oceandoor may have had difficulty sourcing the Feefifofum 300 controller used in the original review sample, and quietly substituted it with the inferior Feefifofum 200. The PCB was redesigned accordingly, and the resulting product – slower and cheaper to manufacture – was sold under the same model number. Manufacturers usually ‘cover themselves’ by making vague claims such as “up to 5000MB/s”, so that when this sort of switcheroo occurs, the revised product still meets its advertised specifications. Nevertheless, it’s a poor practice and one that I believe misleads consumers. In my view, a specific model number should correspond to a specific hardware configuration. Only very minor revisions (those that have negligible impact on performance, or that genuinely improve it) should be allowed under the same model number. Anything more substantial should require a new designation. In the example above, calling the revised product the FlameSturgeon 17000X, 18000XB or 18000X-2 would at least make it clear that it is not identical to the original. I don’t think that would stop people from buying it. I’ve encountered similar problems with Wi-Fi dongles. Years ago, I would read reports that a particular dongle worked well under Linux, buy the same model, and find that it wasn’t recognised at all. The reason, once again, was a silent hardware revision that used a completely different and incompatible chipset. Sadly, this still happens today. It shouldn’t. While it may not rise to the level of fraud or outright false advertising, it is certainly not consumer-friendly behaviour. If manufacturers are unwilling to address the problem voluntarily, it may ultimately require legislation to ensure that product codes actually mean something. Transmitters/bugs/telephone equipment We advise readers that certain items of radio transmitting and telephone equipment which may be advertised in our pages cannot be legally used in the UK. Readers should check the law before buying any transmitting or telephone equipment, as a fine, confiscation of equipment and/or imprisonment can result from illegal use or ownership. The laws vary from country to country; readers should check local laws. 2 Nicholas Vinen, Electron Publishing (Australia)* * a division of Silicon Chip Publications Pty Ltd. Practical Electronics | May | 2026