As proof, as long as I’m still working in the instrumentation field in this life, I definitely won’t use anything from K-TEK.
Thread Content
MLGB is angry, really angry. :@:@:@ We have dozens of K-TEK external float level transmitters in use here. MLGB products are expensive and of poor quality; they start to malfunction after about a year. Attempts such as adjusting the threshold voltage, recalibrating them, or removing the insulation cover don’t work – nothing can fix them, and the only solution is to replace them with new ones. In summer it keeps you sweat-free, while in winter it provides warmth. It’s from MLGB; right in the middle of the New Year they changed it again, making it fully insulated. I checked the records – it’s been just over a year, and I’ve never seen such a crappy thing before. Let the seas and rivers be witnesses: as long as I’m still working in this industry in this life, I will definitely never use anything from K-TEK, and I’ll remain hostile to K-TEK for the rest of my life.
During the New Year, let’s stay peaceful and harmonious……
Hey, K-TEK isn’t very useful to begin with – why use it when there are so many other brands available? Are your instrument engineers that incompetent? Is the supply provided in exchange for payment?
External float level gauges – such useless devices really have no reason to exist
It’s an old facility that’s over 20 years old; K-TEK products have been used since it was first installed, and I guess they’ve continued to be used ever since. But the old K-TEKS used to work very well; you could use them for years without having to worry about anything. But since it was acquired by ABB, those purchased later didn’t work; it just turned into this crappy mess.
It seems that foreign products are still of poor quality.
1. Congratulations~~~ Have a great year! Wish for a better year ahead. 2. As for products, they are simply items; if they’re good, then they’re good, and if they’re not, then they’re not. Criticizing products and offering suggestions, I think, is beneficial to society and also serves as a motivation for manufacturers. ~~~~~ 3. If manufacturers disagree, then let them come and respond with arguments and reasoning, right?
Happy New Year, senior. There’s still one of the old K-TEKS in use; I’ve been at this facility for 10 years and haven’t touched it at all – it’s still in great condition. But whenever K-TEK with the ABB logo was replaced later on, damn it, it seems like it’s been changed almost completely. One is also extremely expensive, over 20,000 yuan. It doesn’t matter what we say; they still purchase this junk. It’s all just a complete waste of money.
I have been involved in equipment procurement, and I have encountered similar issues before. For a given brand, there is a huge difference in quality between the original imported versions and those now produced domestically; there are also significant differences in quality among different manufacturers, as well as among different suppliers acting as agents. It generally stems from the following factors, which can be shared with colleagues in the procurement/equipment departments: 1. The supplier’s global strategy of manufacturing an entire product line in China, which leads to a decline in quality control, with products shifting from high-quality ones to merely satisfactory ones ； 2. Considering factors such as habits, demand, profits, etc., certain products have been replaced abroad, but are still available only in China. Meanwhile, the product lines are moved to China or licensed to Chinese companies for OEM production, resulting in products that go from being high-quality to merely acceptable ； 3. Some cross-industry agents submit bids using identical product lines based on different industry standards, resulting in unacceptable quality ； 4. Some unauthorized companies claim to be agents and submit bids using smuggled/fake products, resulting in uncontrollable or even unacceptable quality ； 5. Some companies, in the course of their rapid expansion, acquire companies of very poor quality to use as production sites, resulting in unacceptable product quality for certain product lines or specific models. The above factors need to be clearly clarified during the bidding process, and the supplier is required to provide sufficient proof; otherwise, they pose potential risks.
The original poster is right in their opinion, but it’s suggested that those unpleasant words be removed; it’s still possible to convey the same meaning