A report worth knowing about if you have a NutriBullet
Another article about Nutribullet claims.
It contains excerpts from the user manual and a statement by News.com.au that they had read the manual including the 2 pages of warnings.
It appears that it is just another case of the old saying “When all else fails, read the instructions”.
In the real world that often comes right after reading and accepting the software license agreement.
As a general observation, if you put hot things into a tightly sealed container and agitate, expansion WILL happen. (If you haven’t, try ¼ filling a plastic milk bottle with hot water and shake. The sides will bulge out.)
Guess what? The Nutribullet is a fluid/airtight sealed container and the contents are agitated big time when turned on. So how do people expect the building pressure from hot contents to escape?
Perhaps the warnings should be printed in big letters onto the Nutribullet cup/containers to cater for the absence of common sense?
[Edit: @zackarii kindly pointed out the following is an urban myth - see Winnebago sued for cruise control} OT: Only in America can they be compensated for the lack of common sense like the guy that was driving; put his Winebago onto cruise control, and went to the back for a coffee. He won in court. Only in America.
You would be amazed at the lack of basic science knowledge and comprehension. Just look at Canberra for a starters and it rarely gets better, save in our circles.
Once upon a time there was vocational/home economics education to teach the basics, and some hands on science. It has largely moved on to focus on abstract and arm waving concepts.
[edit: as @zackarii pointed out, since there is no trace it is probably a legend] A better one you may not be familiar with was Piper Aircraft being successfully sued for product negligence for producing taildraggers. From memory the pilot and airport manager had problems, and the pilot taxied for takeoff but the airport manager stepped in front of the airplane to stop him, and was killed by the propeller - the pilot cannot see directly in front until sufficient power is applied and the tail comes up. Hence the pilot could not see the idiot in front of him until far too late. The case essentially killed light planes in the US for a decade. When protective laws were passed all the light airplanes were subsequently tricycle geared. Surprisingly I could not find a reference hit. Mea culpa.
I am constantly much to my chagrin.
Hadn’t heard about that. Staggering.
Very sadly, the ‘blame someone else for our mistakes’ mentality seem to have caught on here in Australia.
If one doesn’t read the user manual/instructions, one is unlikely to read big letters on the side of the packaging.
Maybe Nutribullet needs a temperature/thermostat stitch, which shuts down the blender when a certain temperaturenis reached…many other appliances have these to prevent damage to the appliance.
I also can’t believe that someone would run a blender/Nutribullet to make a cold smoothy so long that the contents reach near boiling point. I imagine that it wouldn’t be a slow process.
My view is that the warnings and cautions (as well as software licenses) have become so far tilted toward liability and law they have become noise to most of us so we do not if ever read them, and expect our common sense to ‘protect’ us, for better or worse.
Most of us think products should be capable of doing their obvious, but what is ‘obvious’ is often limited to the eye of the beholder (or engineer).
When I said:
What I meant was on the cup/container that is used on the Nutribullet, not on the box. Apologies if it wasn’t clear.
[“When I said… What I meant…” gave me a momentary flash of Donald Trump speaking. ]
That would make sense, but maybe if the lawyers get involved, the cup would all of a sudden grow in size to cover all eventualities.
(the legalese is still in 4 pt font)
How do you always manage to find these suitable/appropriate pics?
Ahhh the Urban Myths! Snopes is your friend for these - Winnebago Coffee maker https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/cruise-uncontrol/
As for Piper ceasing the manufacture of tail wheel aircraft - I laughed - the tricycle undercarriage was a Cessna innovation that proved popular because it was not as difficult to handle on ground as was the tail wheel or rear skid. Apart from poor forward visibility (they usually snake back & forth to look where they are going), they had a tenancy to nose over and smash the propeller or ground loop and wreck a wing. Tricycle (nose-wheel) aircraft didn’t need as much rudder and fancy handling and were an instant hit with students, pilots and schools. They sold thousand!
I am a (US) certificated pilot. I soled in a PA-11, eventually owned a PA24-260C, and am quite familiar with the history of both Piper, Cessna, and FWIW Beechcraft. Regardless of the relative simplicity introduced by the tricycle gear, bush airplanes are tail draggers for good reason; when those cute little nose wheels hit something like a rock, kabang and there goes your propeller and an engine tear down or worse…
As for urban myths regarding the lawsuit, I checked snopes and did not find it, nor anywhere else. It was a good story but I guess your case about it being a legend could be right on, so my bad. I edited my original.
@PhilT Don’t feel bad about it, husband and I are both pilots. I have a Cessna 152 and he has several tail draggers. The conventional Vs tricycle argument rages ad infinitum at our place. he hadn’t heard of the airport manager being killed by one either.
An interesting SBS News article about a researcher winning a Nobel Prize for proving that nobody reads the user manual.
Sorry @Fred123 I can’t be bothered reading that.
What an Ignoble ending.
… is there a manual for how to read it?