audio recording on IC -help wanted

[Frank]

Thank you JW a great help

JW <none@dev.null> wrote in message
news:ilsh73dhge18if8cr104b3otfdpe4dkimq@4ax.com...
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 20:58:57 +1200 "Frank" <erty@home.com> wrote in
Message id: <4678ec8a@clear.net.nz>:

I need two of each to repair two switch mode power supplys

SPW47N60C3 Cool MOST Power Transistor

SDT12S60 Silicon Carbide Schottky Diode

Have you tried http://www.findchips.com

 

[Frank]

I heard Digikey kill off the enjoyment by their high pack & postage fee, if
you have a real big order it is not so bad you can spread out the cost.


legg <legg@nospam.magma.ca> wrote in message
news:n7oj73lshp38aofg48b90tv9igcl87icm7@4ax.com...
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 20:58:57 +1200, "Frank" <erty@home.com> wrote:

I need two of each to repair two switch mode power supplys

SPW47N60C3 Cool MOST Power Transistor

SDT12S60 Silicon Carbide Schottky Diode

Both parts in stock at Digikey, and available in small quantities..

http://www.digikey.com

RL

 

[legg]

On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 18:18:22 +1200, "Frank" <erty@home.com> wrote:

I heard Digikey kill off the enjoyment by their high pack & postage fee, if
you have a real big order it is not so bad you can spread out the cost.


legg <legg@nospam.magma.ca> wrote in message
news:n7oj73lshp38aofg48b90tv9igcl87icm7@4ax.com...
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 20:58:57 +1200, "Frank" <erty@home.com> wrote:

I need two of each to repair two switch mode power supplys

SPW47N60C3 Cool MOST Power Transistor

SDT12S60 Silicon Carbide Schottky Diode


Both parts in stock at Digikey, and available in small quantities..

http://www.digikey.com

At the prices of the part numbers you mentioned, you'll be hard
pressed not to exceed their free shipping charge level.

RL

 

[legg]

On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 18:18:22 +1200, "Frank" <erty@home.com> wrote:

I heard Digikey kill off the enjoyment by their high pack & postage fee, if
you have a real big order it is not so bad you can spread out the cost.

Sorry, I meant to say that handling charges are waived above a certain
purchase level, not shipping.

RL

 

[Frank]

yes I know it was clear on your first posting

I asked two other places they must be bogged down with orders or they dont
like out of country customers




legg <legg@nospam.magma.ca> wrote in message
news:u7ro735mf3gi4fmfa10dbc0el32493t9ka@4ax.com...
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 18:18:22 +1200, "Frank" <erty@home.com> wrote:

I heard Digikey kill off the enjoyment by their high pack & postage fee, if
you have a real big order it is not so bad you can spread out the cost.

Sorry, I meant to say that handling charges are waived above a certain
purchase level, not shipping.

RL

 

[hr(bob) hofmann@att.net]

On Jun 26, 1:19 pm, Lostgallifreyan <no-...@nowhere.net> wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com> wrote innews:4681209D.DFABE9@hotmail.com:







Serge Auckland wrote:

Quite apart from the problems of disposing of old CFLs, I question
the whole principle of Low Energy lighting. If you have a
conventional bulb, much of the energy output is in the form of heat,
which will help heat the room, and consequently will reduce the need
for other heating, central or otherwise.

That's sort of fine if you want extra heat. Often as not you don't.

The other downside of your idea is that electricity is more costly
than other heat sources (often by a large amount).

No, that's no excuse for low efficiency lighting.

It wasn't an excuse, it was a reason, and a good one, there was more to his
point than you quoted. Most times light is used, heat is also wanted. Where
it isn't, you use a light source that doesn't add heat, and there are
several choices. LED's in outdoor and tunnel and other places where people
don't need to spend time keeping warm, or any of the other types already in
use, but that's not where people spend most of their time.

The current availability of CFL's is no excuse to risk vast pollution and
ebergy use in manufacture for all the general domestic uses that also need
heat, and this is true before you begin to consider all the dimmers that
must be replaced and thrown away.

If you're looking for excuses, at least look in the right place. Trying to
force an end to the incandescent lamp to satify a political expedient is
not engineering, but an excuse. No matter how people heat their homes, the
important thing is not to let it all out of the roofs, doors and windows,
it's less important where it comes from.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Let's get back to the original poster's problem.

 

[Lostgallifreyan]

"hr(bob) hofmann@att.net" <hrhofmann@att.net> wrote in
news:1182883480.995387.260000@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:

Let's get back to the original poster's problem.

Fine by me. I never saw the original problem in the group I saw this appear
in, it's migrated just a tad. Look at the number groups it's posted to...

 

[Albert Manfredi]

"Lostgallifreyan" <no-one@nowhere.net> wrote:

Most times light is used, heat is also wanted.

I suppose that depends where you live. In many parts of the populated
world, heating and cooling seasons are roughly even in length.

Also, even in heating seasons, the heat generated by light bulbs is not
necessarily efficiently generated or distributed. Resistive heating is
hardly the most efficient way to heat your home or office.

Where
it isn't, you use a light source that doesn't add heat, and there are
several choices. LED's in outdoor and tunnel and other places where
people
don't need to spend time keeping warm, or any of the other types
already in
use, but that's not where people spend most of their time.

LEDs will become a good option. From what I've read so far, their
efficiency will be very similar to that of fluorescents, both requiring
a little more than 1/5 as much energy as incandescent bulbs, for a given
lumens level.

The current availability of CFL's is no excuse to risk vast pollution
and
ebergy use in manufacture for all the general domestic uses that also
need
heat, and this is true before you begin to consider all the dimmers
that
must be replaced and thrown away.

I agree with this. The disposal of these things will create a pollution
problem. One mitigating factor is that one of these will last many years
as opposed to months, in normal use. But the disposal problem is
definitely an issue, and it also applies to hybrid cars or all-electric
cars.

You try to fix one problem and risk creating an even bigger one.

Bert

 

[Eeyore]

Lostgallifreyan wrote:

Eeyore wrote
Serge Auckland wrote:

Quite apart from the problems of disposing of old CFLs, I question
the whole principle of Low Energy lighting. If you have a
conventional bulb, much of the energy output is in the form of heat,
which will help heat the room, and consequently will reduce the need
for other heating, central or otherwise.

That's sort of fine if you want extra heat. Often as not you don't.

The other downside of your idea is that electricity is more costly
than other heat sources (often by a large amount).

No, that's no excuse for low efficiency lighting.


It wasn't an excuse, it was a reason, and a good one, there was more to his
point than you quoted. Most times light is used, heat is also wanted.

I disagree totally. Furthermore an incandescent lamp adds heat at ceiling level
usually where it is useless for warming a room.

Where
it isn't, you use a light source that doesn't add heat, and there are
several choices. LED's in outdoor and tunnel and other places where people
don't need to spend time keeping warm, or any of the other types already in
use, but that's not where people spend most of their time.

LED lamps are currently hugely expensive and the light they create is even
wierder than CFLs. No, CFLs do fine at this.

The current availability of CFL's is no excuse to risk vast pollution and
ebergy use in manufacture for all the general domestic uses that also need
heat, and this is true before you begin to consider all the dimmers that
must be replaced and thrown away.

If you're looking for excuses, at least look in the right place. Trying to
force an end to the incandescent lamp to satify a political expedient is
not engineering, but an excuse. No matter how people heat their homes, the
important thing is not to let it all out of the roofs, doors and windows,
it's less important where it comes from.

I happen to disagree with simply 'banning incandescent bulbs' but that's more
from a libertarian perspective than anything else.

Banning incandescents totally would also have the effect of banning modern high
efficiency halogens too, some of which currently can be twice as efficient as
standard tungsten incandescents and both Philips and GE have plans to improve
this figure further still.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Albert Manfredi wrote:

is definitely an issue, and it also applies
to hybrid cars or all-electric cars.

Why would 'disposal' of electric or hybrid cars be a problem ?

The batteries would obviously be recycled, they're far too valuable to throw
away, as would electric motors too I expect for their copper content. I'd have
thought by the time they're commonplace, there ought to be very good car
recycling facilities in place.

Graham

 

[Lostgallifreyan]

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:46819295.A1808F71@hotmail.com:

I disagree totally. Furthermore an incandescent lamp adds heat at
ceiling level usually where it is useless for warming a room.

Mostly radiant, so with reflectors, or high efficiency white
reflective surfaces, a lot of it can be reflected down. What little goes
upwards might help (minimally) to reduce heating requirements for people in
rooms above.

LED lamps are currently hugely expensive and the light they create is
even wierder than CFLs. No, CFLs do fine at this.

That's true, about LED light, but that's exactly what will make it
attractive to many. What's also vital is that good colour rendering can be
had with RGB that is much easier to filter out, which should please the
astronomers, as well as those who need more efficient whitelight sources.
CFL's on the other hand, have a light quality that is far harder to control
than LED's and LED's in the end will be more appealing, easy to dim,
therfore easy to get different colours immediately on demand in a way that
no previous tech has allowed. They will become enormously popular.

I happen to disagree with simply 'banning incandescent bulbs' but
that's more from a libertarian perspective than anything else.

Banning incandescents totally would also have the effect of banning
modern high efficiency halogens too, some of which currently can be
twice as efficient as standard tungsten incandescents and both Philips
and GE have plans to improve this figure further still.

Agreed, I think that it is a technology that will always find uses, and
banning it before it's reached the best possible development would be daft.
Anyway, as most lamps have special characteristics that are suited to
certain tasks, industrial process use won't be banned, I think. It's the
general long-term human environmental lighting that really needs to be
thought through because the bulk consumption is there.

The main thing is that govt reactions with no engineering thought behind
them need to be stopped, and I hope that some of the smarter politicos read
Usenet threads like this one. They could save SO much time, as they're up
to date, filled with various opinions and facts, and if govt wants to find
people who discuss this stuff they should go where they can find it
naturally occuring, instead of listening to pundits with private agendas
whispering in their ears, or just going for a big media news-story to steer
their course by.

 

[Ray King]

Hi,
The CFL movement is not just USA. Almost every country ( no opec countries
to my knowledge) that is energy conscious is changing to CFL's. Even Cuba.
The difference is the military inters your home and removes all of the
incandescent bulbs and replaces them with CFL's made at a factory located
near the Havana airport.
Ray



"Lostgallifreyan" <no-one@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:Xns995C5D73AC82Ezoodlewurdle@140.99.99.130...

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:46819295.A1808F71@hotmail.com:

I disagree totally. Furthermore an incandescent lamp adds heat at
ceiling level usually where it is useless for warming a room.


Mostly radiant, so with reflectors, or high efficiency white
reflective surfaces, a lot of it can be reflected down. What little goes
upwards might help (minimally) to reduce heating requirements for people
in
rooms above.

LED lamps are currently hugely expensive and the light they create is
even wierder than CFLs. No, CFLs do fine at this.


That's true, about LED light, but that's exactly what will make it
attractive to many. What's also vital is that good colour rendering can be
had with RGB that is much easier to filter out, which should please the
astronomers, as well as those who need more efficient whitelight sources.
CFL's on the other hand, have a light quality that is far harder to
control
than LED's and LED's in the end will be more appealing, easy to dim,
therfore easy to get different colours immediately on demand in a way that
no previous tech has allowed. They will become enormously popular.

I happen to disagree with simply 'banning incandescent bulbs' but
that's more from a libertarian perspective than anything else.

Banning incandescents totally would also have the effect of banning
modern high efficiency halogens too, some of which currently can be
twice as efficient as standard tungsten incandescents and both Philips
and GE have plans to improve this figure further still.


Agreed, I think that it is a technology that will always find uses, and
banning it before it's reached the best possible development would be
daft.
Anyway, as most lamps have special characteristics that are suited to
certain tasks, industrial process use won't be banned, I think. It's the
general long-term human environmental lighting that really needs to be
thought through because the bulk consumption is there.

The main thing is that govt reactions with no engineering thought behind
them need to be stopped, and I hope that some of the smarter politicos
read
Usenet threads like this one. They could save SO much time, as they're up
to date, filled with various opinions and facts, and if govt wants to find
people who discuss this stuff they should go where they can find it
naturally occuring, instead of listening to pundits with private agendas
whispering in their ears, or just going for a big media news-story to
steer
their course by.

 

[Eeyore]

Lostgallifreyan wrote:

Eeyore wrote
dizzy wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

If the central heating is on, then you are, by definition, needing
extra heat. The heat output from lighting will mean that the room
thermostat (or radiator valves) will turn off that bit sooner.

Not really.

The heat from most lamps hangs around at ceiling level. It does sod
all to warm a room.

Wrong.

Not wrong.


Yes it is. Most of the heat is radiant.

Which means most of it ends up where it won't warm YOU.

Graham

 

[Lostgallifreyan]

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:4686254E.2F0C39B5@hotmail.com:

Which means most of it ends up where it won't warm YOU.

Don't be daft, I don't exist in a vaccuum! I already posted, at LENGTH,
that it's healthier to avoid excessive thermal gradients focussed on our
own bodies. I'm sure you disagree, but by now that's because it's me saying
it, isn't it? Nothing to do with actual science.

 

[Eeyore]

Lostgallifreyan wrote:

Eeyore wrote

Which means most of it ends up where it won't warm YOU.

Don't be daft, I don't exist in a vaccuum! I already posted, at LENGTH,
that it's healthier to avoid excessive thermal gradients focussed on our
own bodies. I'm sure you disagree, but by now that's because it's me saying
it, isn't it? Nothing to do with actual science.

I don't understand your objection to direct radiant heat.

In any event if you were intentionally adding heating you wouldn't locate it on
the ceiling !

Graham

 

[Lostgallifreyan]

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:468628E8.FD2BD1C1@hotmail.com:

In any event if you were intentionally adding heating you wouldn't
locate it on the ceiling !

I take it that big post of mine never got through... I described a house
where that is exactly what had been done. I don't think it's a great idea,
but it's more effective than you'd think. The sun doesn't add heat to the
earth from below, either.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

"Mr.T" wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message

Then you've never been in a TV studio

Hey you're both partly right. As it generates heat, it will add *something*
to the room temperature. But if the fitting is at ceiling height, and since
hot air rises, it is not an efficient way to warm the part of the room that
humans inhabit. And if you don't have ceiling insulation, it will do even
less.

Military TV station in Alaska in the early '70s: Halogen studio
lights at the ceiling, and less than half in use at any one time. In the
winter I would open the back door to the studio to allow the sub zero
air into the studio to keep it below 80 degrees. In the summer, the
talking heads did the news in a dress uniform shirt and jacket, and
their underwear, because there was no air conditioning.

It's normally considered far better to place electric radiant heaters at
floor level, and relatively close to humans.

Of course the radiant heat from studio lamps is far greater than normal
domestic bulbs, but I wouldn't want to be paying for the electricity they
use either.

Newer studio cameras need less light than the older models. That
reduces studio operating costs, and mantainenece costs, as well.

Even bathroom heat lamps are mirror backed to project the heat downwards,
and they are a pretty inefficient heating method regardless. Fortunately
they are only designed to be used for short periods.

Its stupid NOT to have a reflector on any ceiling mounted lamp. When
it comes to studio lighting, there are different types of fixtues to
choose from. The choice depends on the lighting pattern that is
required. Also, small studio spotlights are used with brass Gobos to
project patterens on the studio walls. The last custom one I made was a
Shamrock, for an Irish preacher, who was visiting WACX TV.

http://www.sfxdesigninc.com/v2/ for examples of stock Gobos.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

 

[Eeyore]

Lostgallifreyan wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote

In any event if you were intentionally adding heating you wouldn't
locate it on the ceiling !

I take it that big post of mine never got through... I described a house
where that is exactly what had been done.

It's a very odd idea indeed.

I don't think it's a great idea, but it's more effective than you'd think. The
sun doesn't add heat to the earth from below, either.

Neither does it do so in these latitudes from above.
Graham

 

[Lostgallifreyan]

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:4686B1D0.2A05CAE9@hotmail.com:

I don't think it's a great idea, but it's more effective than you'd
think. The sun doesn't add heat to the earth from below, either.

Neither does it do so in these latitudes from above.

Hell, right now it barely shines at all. >

 

[Eeyore]

Don Klipstein wrote:

I had a dollar store junker DOA, and another die spectacularly in 3
minutes (lots of smoke and orange burning glow in the ballast housing that
did not stop until I shut off the power).

That'll doubtless be a certification failure.

Graham