Recommended Posts

After rebuilding my lazer mouse 4 times and deciding this time not to replace the switch, I forced myself to buy a new mouse, the mouse "similar" (I use that loosely)  to my old one was the Logitech M705 usb, however after thinking how lucky I was not to pay $50 I found out the buttons are cheap compared to the old lazer mouse war horse, they for some reason would get bound and stuck.  The mouse came new with them rubbing together ack!   Where the left stacked up over the top of right or vice versa.  Without panicing, I looked at the mouse and thought well maybe if we file it at an angle it won't bind.  Welp guess what, go get some 100 grit sandpaper cause that *IS* the fix.  Go slow so your not off on an uglification project like my example below, and may the tech god's bless your mouse unbind it's switches again. 

 

SO the theory is to round the two squared surfaces like an edge router.   )(   clickity click now that it's slick.20180419034038337.thumb.jpg.237debf937c35ea279a35ea356e746e3.jpg20180419034103831.thumb.jpg.f51f0c253dc69e08861709f41573ac50.jpg

I don't like spending time shopping, I hate lines, and crowds. Where I live crowds are unsafe at this time.   You would have to have had this mouse in your hand.  If functioned fine, until you get in a hurry-start right/left clickin.  I do not believe a new mouse would been any better, not to mention it was the last on on the shelf.  This trick solves the problem. Also when I said I had to replace my mouse, that's because there was a bad switch in the old one, so a one-directional transaction as I needed a mouse period.  and I ain't sitting around for days mouse-less AWP "parts. "

 

Maybe logitch sleuths will come out and gulp down this data and the next model mouse will have rounded ends?  At the end of the day even Edison's light bulb was an invention of many inventions.  I can now think of my mouse as a "more hardened" cheap plastic mouse as I can enjoy my "re-capped"  monitors (which I also don't "just return") way past their seven year cycle of death.

I've been using my M705 since about 2010 without issue. I actually recommend that mouse pretty often because of how well it's treated me and how nice it feels in hand.

It sucks that you got a lemon, I'd say return it and get a new one.

Compare your 2010 mouse to a modern 2018 with the same model number.   I too have other M705 that has no problem.  This one however has the buttons cheaply made and squished together along the middle seam between the left and right buttons.  I am betting yours has a 1/32'nds " gap in there.  mine rubbed, sanding opened the gap and smothed it where it's no longer an issue, and no need to return it as it's no longer a lemon.  

 

Can't you RMA it? I had to RMA one of their keyboards and mouse. They didn't even require a return. They just sent me a new one.

3 minutes ago, NJL said:

Sounds like you have a knock off.

I was going to say the same thing.  Never had a build issue with a Logitech.  And the image in the OP, plastic looks cheap/pitted.  I the same model mouse and it is different and much much better.  Parents got a 1st gen MS Surface mouse...or so they thought.  Looked the same but closer looking, there were things that were different.   I compared to a genuine MS mouse I have and you can see the differences as well.

1 hour ago, pengwyn said:

Compare your 2010 mouse to a modern 2018 with the same model number.   I too have other M705 that has no problem.  This one however has the buttons cheaply made and squished together along the middle seam between the left and right buttons.  I am betting yours has a 1/32'nds " gap in there.  mine rubbed, sanding opened the gap and smothed it where it's no longer an issue, and no need to return it as it's no longer a lemon.  

 

I'll see if I can take a close up picture when I get home. I'm pretty sure you're right about the 1/32" gap (it's straight the whole way down).

 

I received mine as a gift shortly after they came out. I recently recommended it to one of our employees (a few months ago) and she says she loves it.

That mouse and the 5.1 surround setup I bought in '09 are two big reasons I will always look at logitech peripherals first.

37 minutes ago, NJL said:

knock off

Mouse with problem, which I sanded away with 100 grit

M/N: M-R0073

P/N: 810-005897

 

Mouse with good 1/16" -1/32" gap (the older M705)

M/N: M-R0009

P/N 810-001812

20180419070137043.thumb.jpg.2685d9826eb9a62533f0ca6cffeb27ec.jpg(see attached photo)

 

Edited by pengwyn

I have a brand new M705 and it has the M-R0009 part number.  Perfectly uniform ~1/32" gap between the buttons.  I have another one at home that's about 7-8 years old and it still works perfectly.

 

Is the M-R0073 model made in a different factory?  Mine says made in China.  Perhaps you got hit with a quality control issue.

32 minutes ago, pengwyn said:

Mouse with problem, which I sanded away with 100 grit

M/N: M-R0073

P/N: 810-005897

 

Mouse with good 1/16" -1/32" gap (the older M705)

M/N: M-R0009

P/N 810-001812

(see attached photo)

 

Knock off.  Both my m705s say M-R0009.

Did a search on M-R0073.   Came up with one hit for Logitech support site.   Another search for M-R0009 came up with a lot of Logitech site hits.  So chances are you either got a knock off which was labeled with an old part number, or a crappy mouse and possible a reason why Logitech updated their M705 mice. 

 

I guess what really matters here if you are happy with it and it works. I doubt you will be able to return it anyway since you basically damaged/modded the mouse when you "fixed" it.  Personally, I would have sent it back and got one that was good out of the box.

Just now, pengwyn said:

it's CLEARLY a logitech M705 usb mouse.  

KNock offs can look exactly, or 99 percent, as the original.  Hard to tell sometimes.  It can say Logitech, have the same part numbers, and still be a knock off.  I have seen knock offs in all sorts of equipment.  Some fakes are harder to spot than others.

2 minutes ago, techbeck said:

KNock offs can look exactly, or 99 percent, as the original.  Hard to tell sometimes.  It can say Logitech, have the same part numbers, and still be a knock off.  I have seen knock offs in all sorts of equipment.  Some fakes are harder to spot than others.

It came from Staples, in Sacramento

4 minutes ago, pengwyn said:

it's CLEARLY a logitech M705 usb mouse.  

But not the SAME M705 - how you are struggling with this, I've no idea.  Different part number and by your own comments, differently constructed.

1 minute ago, pengwyn said:

It came from Staples, in Sacramento

Then why not return it?  Staples has a good return policy.  Or pick a diff model mouse all together/buy from a different place.  And unsafe crowds.....ok.  I doubt people would rob you of a cheap mouse.

20180419075150399.thumb.jpg.39d61b00a5a98de48e60962ea7cc2ae6.jpgI think the mouse is fine. You need to get on down with a microscope to see the sanding, follow up with 400, 600, 800, 1000, 1500, and 2000 if it's a problem.  Sorry my poor eyesight You can now see that was a star not a USB symbol I originally claimed.   Yes the markings are like a knockoff.  But at the end of the day this is what I have to enjoy life with.

Edited by pengwyn
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • Indeed. But note that this has Wifi7, HDMI 2.1, BlueTooth 5.4, and 5G Ethernet, so even in the additional features list this bundle blows the Steam Machine away. And, with the money saved, one could improve this dramatically.
    • One of the strangest galaxies in our Universe could help answer some long overdue questions by Sayan Sen Image by Pixabay via Pexels | Not representative An international team of astronomers led by the Department of Astronomy at Tsinghua University has discovered an unusually metal-poor galaxy that may contain signs of first-generation star formation. The galaxy, named Metal-Pristine Galaxy COSMOS Redshift 3 (MPG-CR3), or CR3, was identified using observations from the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), the Very Large Telescope (VLT), and the Subaru Telescope. The findings, published in The Astrophysical Journal Letters, describe CR3 as the most metal-poor galaxy known from the period known as "cosmic noon," around 11.5 billion years ago. Cosmic noon refers to a period when the universe was producing stars at its highest rate and galaxies were growing rapidly. In astronomy, "metals" refers to all elements heavier than helium, including oxygen, carbon, and iron. Because CR3 contains so few of these heavier elements, researchers say it closely resembles what scientists expect the earliest galaxies in the universe may have looked like. The discovery is significant because it could offer clues about Population III (Pop III) stars, the first generation of stars thought to have formed after the Big Bang. These stars are believed to have formed from gas made almost entirely of hydrogen and helium, before heavier elements were created inside stars and spread across the universe through supernova explosions. Hence this is why CR3 has been referred to as a "living fossil." Scientists have long believed that Population III stars existed only in the very early universe. As more generations of stars formed and died, they enriched surrounding gas with heavier elements, making the conditions needed for metal-free star formation increasingly rare. Because of this, researchers expected the formation of such stars to have largely ended after the epoch of reionization, a period when radiation from the first stars and galaxies transformed the neutral hydrogen filling the universe and made it largely transparent to ultraviolet light. CR3 appears to challenge that idea. The galaxy was observed at a redshift of z = 3.193 ± 0.016. Redshift measures how much light from a distant object has been stretched as the universe expands and helps astronomers determine how far back in time they are looking. In this case, the redshift corresponds to roughly 11.5 billion years ago during cosmic noon. Although the universe was already several billion years old by that point, CR3 shows characteristics more commonly associated with much earlier galaxies. Observations revealed exceptionally strong emissions from hydrogen and helium, including Lyα, Hα, and He I λ10830. Lyα, or Lyman-alpha emission, is a specific wavelength of light produced by hydrogen and is widely used to study distant galaxies. Hα emission is another hydrogen signature commonly used to trace active star formation, while He I λ10830 is produced by helium and can indicate the presence of very hot, young stars. The measured equivalent widths of EW₀(Lyα) = 822 ± 101 Å and EW₀(Hα) = 2814 ± 327 Å are among the highest ever observed in star-forming galaxies. Equivalent width is a measure of the strength of an emission line relative to the surrounding light, and such large values are typically associated with intense and very recent star formation. At the same time, researchers found no statistically significant detections of metal emission lines, including [O III] λλ4959, 5007 and C IV λλ1548, 1550. Emission lines act as chemical fingerprints that reveal which elements are present in a galaxy. Oxygen and carbon lines are commonly seen in galaxies that have already undergone significant chemical enrichment. Their absence in CR3 suggests an unusually pristine environment. Using abundance calibration methods developed with JWST observations, the team placed a 2σ upper limit on the galaxy's gas-phase metallicity of 12+log(O/H)<6.52, corresponding to less than 0.7% of the Sun's metallicity (Z < 7 × 10⁻³ Z⊙). Gas-phase metallicity measures the abundance of heavy elements in a galaxy's gas. A 2σ upper limit indicates that the true value is very unlikely to be higher than the quoted threshold. Even when accounting for uncertainties in the calibration methods, the most conservative limit remains 12+log(O/H)<6.95, making CR3 the most metal-poor galaxy identified at cosmic noon. The galaxy also appears to contain very little dust. Researchers measured a Lyα/Hα flux ratio of 13.9 ± 2.5, a result that suggests negligible dust attenuation, meaning very little of the galaxy's light is being absorbed or scattered by cosmic dust. Because dust is usually produced by earlier generations of stars, this finding further supports the idea that CR3 has experienced very little chemical enrichment. Further analysis using spectral energy distribution modelling, a technique that compares observed light with theoretical models, suggests that CR3 contains an extremely young stellar population only around 2 million years old. The modelling, which used Population III stellar templates, also indicates the galaxy has a stellar mass of approximately 6.1 × 10⁵ M⊙. The symbol M⊙ represents one solar mass, or the mass of the Sun. One of the key questions raised by the discovery is how such a chemically primitive galaxy could exist in a universe that had already spent billions of years producing heavier elements. To investigate this, the researchers examined CR3's surroundings. Their analysis suggests the galaxy may lie in a slightly underdense environment, with a density contrast of roughly δ ≈ −0.12. An underdense region contains less matter and fewer galaxies than average. The team suggests that this relative isolation may have helped preserve pockets of pristine gas. Metal-rich material expelled from nearby galaxies may never have reached CR3, while the lower rate of galaxy mergers and interactions could have slowed the mixing of enriched gas into the system. If future observations confirm these findings, CR3 could provide some of the strongest evidence yet that first-generation star formation continued well after the epoch of reionization. Such a result would challenge the conventional view that pristine star formation ended by z ≳ 6 and suggest that small pockets of metal-free gas survived much longer than previously thought. Researchers stress that more observations will be needed to determine the galaxy's true nature. Future spectroscopic studies with higher resolution and better signal quality could help confirm whether CR3 is genuinely hosting Population III star formation. The discovery is also expected to encourage searches for other similar galaxies, which could help astronomers better understand how the first stars formed and how galaxies evolved in the early universe. Source: Tsinghua University, IOPscience This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
    • "I think in the immediate absence of a partner to apply relief" In the words of Sterling Archer... "Phrasing!"
    • For me, the fundamental problems with these "smartglasses" is that they really don't work well for people with significant prescriptions and massively up the price if you use attached lenses if they have displays, and if they don't, then they're not actually "smart" anything, rather just connecting to your phone and relaying voice to an AI. In a few cases like this, they throw in small cameras to feed video to the AI. All around, these feel like both a solution looking for a problem, and the problems it tries to solve seem more easily solved by different approaches and designs. Oddly, if the rumours are true, Apple may actually have invented something for once and it kind of does this right: put cameras in ear buds and manage the interface to AI exactly as most of us do: tapping on an ear bud and saying "Hey Google" or "Hey Siri." That makes them compatible with almost everyone, can double up as a hearing assist device, an impaired vision assist device, a "smart" device... and answer your phone and play music. That just seems like a better solution all around.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Dedicated
      HidekoYamamoto94 earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • One Month Later
      timbobit earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Month Later
      nates earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Almohandis earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Rookie
      dorf went up a rank
      Rookie
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      454
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      161
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      107
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      84
    5. 5
      Steven P.
      71
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!