Driver to drive?

[UpYerNose]

On Wed, 19 Aug 2009 10:33:10 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

krw wrote:

On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 14:51:37 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:


Jim Thompson wrote:

On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 16:44:19 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:


Jim Yanik wrote:

sugar does not dissolve in gasoline.


It does disolve in the water that condenses and settles to the bottom
of the tank. I've seen over an inch in a couple old tanks I had to
replace. Also, if you fill up right after a station gets their
delivery, it stirs up the water in their tank, and gets pumped into your
tank.

I thought the "additive of choice" was moth balls ?


If you want to blow it up. Water & sugar in the fuel line will
either plug the filter with gelled sugar and sediment, or scorch the
rings & valves.

Wives tale. Enough may plug the filters, if it gets that far, but
sugar isn't soluble in gasoline.


Have you ever dropped an old gas tank? I had to replace one that had
over an inch of water in the bottom of the tank. Older vehicles that
weren't sealed allowed moist air into the tank as the gasoline was
used. Over a couple years, you could build up a fair amount of water.
Haven't you ever seen gasoline sold with 'Additives to prevent fuel line
freeze up' or a can you added to the gas tank?

It happens with newer tanks too. "Older vehicles that weren't
sealed..." That is about some retarded shit. Maybe a dumbfuck like YOU
drove around with a leaky gas tank, but 99.999999 percent of the rest of
us ALL had well sealed tanks! Hahahahah! You're stupid, boy.

So GASOLINE will absorb water right out of the air. The head space in a
tank allows for moisture accumulations as well. Water gets into a new
car tank the same way it got into them in years past.

Tanks are designed specifically such that the sump pick-up will NOT get
the last bits of liquid in the tank, and those bits are usually held in a
low spot AWAY from the pick-up. Tanks are designed specifically to
manage a given amount of water, and keep it out of the pick-up.

The reason modern cars do not accumulate huge amounts of water is due
to differences in the fuel itself, not so much anything about the tank.

They are all still sealed (just like the tanks of the last 50 years),
and they are all still vented. If your "modern" tank is now a poly
bladder, you can then worry less about explosion risks. It will STILL
build up water accumulations from various sources. Also, a lot of gas
has ethanol in it these days, and that will chew up any water sitting in
the bottom of the tank, eventually.

 

On Aug 20, 11:34 am, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Mon, 3 Aug 2009 15:56:16 -0400, "Martin Riddle"

martin_...@verizon.net> wrote:
Documenting destruction of perfectly good engines.
http://minx.cc/?post=290415

Cheers

And some unintended consequences:

http://money.cnn.com/2009/08/20/news/companies/clunkers_sales/?postve...

Now imagine these bungling amateurs trying to do something important,
like running a health care system.

John

"Limited supplies have driven up the cost of a new car to near or even
above sticker prices, negating the advantage of the program.

'The $4,500 might seem like a great deal. But if you pay $2,000 over
sticker for a car that normally sells for $2,000 under sticker, it's
no longer a great deal,' said Jesse Toprak, vice president of industry
trends and insights for car pricing tracker True Car.com."

Cool.

--
James

 

On Aug 19, 7:46 pm, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Wed, 19 Aug 2009 15:38:56 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com
wrote:


On Aug 18, 4:33 pm, Michael <mrdarr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Aug 18, 1:28 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

Right.  I've a great friend on hard times, who was hoping to bootstrap
by scoring a ride, with a max. of $1.5k.  And there were plenty of
possibles, surprisingly.  I've been scoping 'em.

Emphasis on the "were."  Then Obama got busy buying, destroying 'em,
and driving up the price.

Hope and change, snatched.

Nothing on autotrader.com, craigslist, or on eBay cars?

Sure, there are cars everywhere, just not as many because
a lot of perfectly good ones are being destroyed.  

...driving up the price on those that are left.

The needy are thus robbed of affordable transport.

Let's not forget cars that might otherwise be donated to charity.

Hey, I wonder how many green jobs that creates...?

Wanna guess?  I wonder how many jobs it's going to create for lawyers,
trying to get the money out of Washington?

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9A63RC81&show_article=1

We're either being run by a ship of fools, or they're actually trying
to wreck the place. I vote fools, but sometimes it's hard to tell.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[John Larkin]

On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 16:21:42 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Aug 20, 11:34 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Mon, 3 Aug 2009 15:56:16 -0400, "Martin Riddle"

martin_...@verizon.net> wrote:
Documenting destruction of perfectly good engines.
http://minx.cc/?post=290415

Cheers

And some unintended consequences:

http://money.cnn.com/2009/08/20/news/companies/clunkers_sales/?postve...

Now imagine these bungling amateurs trying to do something important,
like running a health care system.

John

"Limited supplies have driven up the cost of a new car to near or even
above sticker prices, negating the advantage of the program.

'The $4,500 might seem like a great deal. But if you pay $2,000 over
sticker for a car that normally sells for $2,000 under sticker, it's
no longer a great deal,' said Jesse Toprak, vice president of industry
trends and insights for car pricing tracker True Car.com."

Cool.

The dealers are mostly pocketing the money... if they can ever collect
it.

John

 

[John Larkin]

On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 16:30:13 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Aug 19, 7:46 pm, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Aug 2009 15:38:56 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com
wrote:


On Aug 18, 4:33 pm, Michael <mrdarr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Aug 18, 1:28 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:


Right.  I've a great friend on hard times, who was hoping to bootstrap
by scoring a ride, with a max. of $1.5k.  And there were plenty of
possibles, surprisingly.  I've been scoping 'em.

Emphasis on the "were."  Then Obama got busy buying, destroying 'em,
and driving up the price.

Hope and change, snatched.

Nothing on autotrader.com, craigslist, or on eBay cars?

Sure, there are cars everywhere, just not as many because
a lot of perfectly good ones are being destroyed.  

...driving up the price on those that are left.

The needy are thus robbed of affordable transport.

Let's not forget cars that might otherwise be donated to charity.

Hey, I wonder how many green jobs that creates...?

Wanna guess?  I wonder how many jobs it's going to create for lawyers,
trying to get the money out of Washington?

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9A63RC81&show_article=1

We're either being run by a ship of fools, or they're actually trying
to wreck the place. I vote fools, but sometimes it's hard to tell.

Both.

John

 

[John Nagle]

Tim Wescott wrote:

On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 17:32:43 +0200, Skybuck Flying wrote:

Hello,

I had an idea how electronics might be diagnosed and repaired more
quickly.


Google is your friend, even if you're a USENET troll.

Search on "built in test" or "BIT" for the military/high-end usage, and
"power on self test" or POST for PC usage.

And get a life.

See also "JTAG port".

John Nagle

 

[Bungalow Bill]

On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 21:58:13 +0000 (UTC), Bluuuuuue Rajah
<Bluuuuuue@Rajah.Com> wrote:

"Smokie Darling (Annie)" <Barnabus1993@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:fa3d20a2-aee9-476b-a179-7071f90ee706@2g2000prl.googlegroups.com:

On Aug 13, 11:27 am, raoul <gr8ra...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 09:53:35 -0700, edonline wrote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32403755/ns/entertainment-music/

Guitar legend Les Paul has died at 94

Inventor changed course of music with electric guitar, multitrack
recording

The Associated Press
updated 12:50 p.m. ET, Thurs., Aug 13, 2009

NEW YORK - Les Paul, the guitarist and inventor who changed the
course of music with the electric guitar and multitrack recording
and had a string of hits, many with wife Mary Ford, died on
Thursday. He was 94.

This is probably a better question for the guitar geek groups but:

Isn't Leo Fender actually credited with the first 'electric' guitar?
 I
'm
pretty sure that the Telecaster was first commercially available
electric guitar (1948?) but didn't he also credited with the actual
concept?  Im familiar with "The Log" but think Fender was first.

His multitrack recording really was th big contribution.  The way it
wa
s
used on the Les Paul/Mary Ford recordings was, IMHO, kind of a
gimmick but, without a doubt, the multilayered recordings of the
60s-today owe much to Paul,

Fender was the first to mass produce electric guitars (1950 I think).
However, there is some discussion as to the "First". See here:

http://blogcritics.org/music/article/a-short-history-of-electric-
guitar
s/

They discuss the designs from approx 1923 by Loar, and that Les Paul
built his first "electric" guitar in 1937, while Fender didn't make
his until 1947 or 1948.

Thanks for posting this.

In the seventies and eighties, Les Paul was often and incorrectly
advertised to be the inventor of the electric guitar. He invented the
SOLID BODY electric guitar, a design that, for some reason, gives the
instrument it's uniquely aggressive rock sound and allows techniques
like power chords and shredding.

When Paul made his breakthrough, pickups had been used on popular,
commercial, hollow-body guitars for just a little more than ten years.
IMO, the electric guitar was invented by whomever invented the Faraday
pickup.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pick_up_(music_technology)

I never heard of pickups with "anodes and charged, stretched
diaphragms," as mentioned in your link, but I doubt they existed when
Buddy Holly, Chuck Berry and Bo Diddly were inventing rock and roll.
The key to the guitar pickup is Faraday's Law. By the physics of
electric and magnetic fields, a metal string vibrating in the field of a
permanent magnet creates an electric current, which is then fed through
an amplifier to make music.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday%27s_law

Putting a microphone onto a hollow body guitar is also not an electric
guitar. Pickups extract the electric signal directly from the string,
without first converting it to sound waves, as a microphone would do.

An electric guitar won't work without metal strings, like the normal
catgut strings used on classical acoustic guitars. Faradays Law only
allows the generation of an electric current when a conductor moves in a
magnetic field.

Faraday's Law. It's your guide to understanding rock and roll guitar.

Maybe there is a way we could add some Iron to gut or nylon.

I would also like to experiment with things...

like maybe a Be body (hollow). Or other mediums. I think it would be
cool to try some odd body materials as well.

 

[Jasen Betts]

On 2009-08-05, Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
My wife's car is dead. It's in the garage, a hard push uphill to get
it out to jump-start, so I figured I'd build a battery charger. We
still have our old DSL modem, and it has a huge 21-volt, 1.1 amp
wall-wart, so I hooked that up. 3.1 amps... if I left that on all
night, it would probably die... seems to be a 60 Hz xfmr-type, so
probably has a thermal fuse. Adding my Makita belt sander in series,
tie-wrap on the trigger, gets down to 1.3 amps, good enough in a cool
garage. Maybe it will start in the morning.

So I should buy a real battery charger some day soon. Are they still
big klunky transformer-rectifier things? I'd think that some nice
small switcher could manage a few amps at least.


Nice thing about the big nasty Sears ones is that they tolerate amazing
amounts of abuse and keep working. Once the price pressure really got
to work on the switcher models, I'd expect them to croak if you touched
the clips together.

these tools are intended for amateur auto mechanics, if they're
not reasonably fool proof there'll be too many returns.

 

[William Sommerwerck]

What pisses me off is the radio and TV pundits who insist on
calling him "Lez Paul". It's "Less Paul", his name was Lester.

While you're at it, get people to say LASE-ur, rather than LAZE-ur.

 

[krw]

On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 08:42:49 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
<grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote:

What pisses me off is the radio and TV pundits who insist on
calling him "Lez Paul". It's "Less Paul", his name was Lester.

While you're at it, get people to say LASE-ur, rather than LAZE-ur.

That would be "LAZE-ur".

 

[Mycelium]

On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 08:39:09 -0700, Fred Abse
<excretatauris@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 21:58:13 +0000, Bluuuuuue Rajah wrote:

In the seventies and eighties, Les Paul was often and incorrectly
advertised to be the inventor of the electric guitar. He invented the
SOLID BODY electric guitar, a design that, for some reason, gives the
instrument it's uniquely aggressive rock sound and allows techniques like
power chords and shredding.

What pisses me off is the radio and TV pundits who insist on calling him
"Lez Paul". It's "Less Paul", his name was Lester.

That is kinda his fault for sticking with the 'short for' version.

You're lucky they did not refer to him as "Lester the Molester".

Oh wait... That was a different entertainer.

"Mikey the Pikey".

 

[Mycelium]

On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 08:42:49 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
<grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote:

What pisses me off is the radio and TV pundits who insist on
calling him "Lez Paul". It's "Less Paul", his name was Lester.

While you're at it, get people to say LASE-ur, rather than LAZE-ur.

It is an acronym. So, it is really LASER, as in ALL caps. The

entirety of society has morphed and convoluted the fucking thing.

But you are wrong. The result of the proper pronunciation DOES carry
the "AZE" sound, not the "ACE" sound.
Laze - er (not ur)

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Richard the Dreaded Libertarian wrote:

On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 08:34:19 -0700, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 3 Aug 2009 15:56:16 -0400, "Martin Riddle"

Documenting destruction of perfectly good engines.
http://minx.cc/?post=290415

And some unintended consequences:

http://money.cnn.com/2009/08/20/news/companies/clunkers_sales/?postversion=2009082010

Now imagine these bungling amateurs trying to do something important,
like running a health care system.

Well, aren't they doing great with the Post Office and the DMV?

Moron. The DMV is operated by state and local government, not
federal.


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense!

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

krw wrote:

On Wed, 19 Aug 2009 22:27:09 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:


krw wrote:

On Wed, 19 Aug 2009 10:33:10 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:


krw wrote:

On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 14:51:37 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:


Jim Thompson wrote:

On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 16:44:19 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:


Jim Yanik wrote:

sugar does not dissolve in gasoline.


It does disolve in the water that condenses and settles to the bottom
of the tank. I've seen over an inch in a couple old tanks I had to
replace. Also, if you fill up right after a station gets their
delivery, it stirs up the water in their tank, and gets pumped into your
tank.

I thought the "additive of choice" was moth balls ?


If you want to blow it up. Water & sugar in the fuel line will
either plug the filter with gelled sugar and sediment, or scorch the
rings & valves.

Wives tale. Enough may plug the filters, if it gets that far, but
sugar isn't soluble in gasoline.


Have you ever dropped an old gas tank? I had to replace one that had
over an inch of water in the bottom of the tank. Older vehicles that
weren't sealed allowed moist air into the tank as the gasoline was
used. Over a couple years, you could build up a fair amount of water.
Haven't you ever seen gasoline sold with 'Additives to prevent fuel line
freeze up' or a can you added to the gas tank?

The sugar will be with the water. If you have water accumulating in
the bottom of the tank the sugar isn't going anywhere either.


Add a little alcohol, and the water will mix with the gasoline.

Except that it doesn't.

<http://www.valvoline.com/products/consumer-products/fuel-additives/gas-line-antifreeze/24>


Then explain how this removes water from a fuel tank if it doesn't use
the alcohol to allow it to be adsorbed into the gasoline.


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense!

 

[Robert Baer]

Bhavani wrote:

On Aug 24, 9:44 am, Bhavani <bhavanire...@gmail.com> wrote:
Link below to the LPC313x reference schematic. I am designing a board
based on this reference schematic.

Page-4 - What is the purpose of 0ohm resistor packs on the EBI data,
address lines as well as on some of the control lines?
Have no idea as to data rates or rise/fall times; would guess that

these are place-holders for series line-matching resistors for Mister
Justin Case.

Page-3 - We are not using USB and ADC peripherals. If we are not
using them, is it mandatory to give power to these peripherals and
disable them in software? We would like to save on those bypass
capacitors, ferrite beads, PCB traces and size.
Since you are not going to use those functions, then remove all of

tha circuitry and program accordingly as you suggested.

Page-9 - What is the need for the buffer 74LVC2G07GW? Since there is a
pull down (R154) why can't we connect ADM811's reset out directly to
LPC's reset. We are not using JTAG, nReset_BRD, nReset_SUP4.
Methinks you have answered your own questin.

TIA,
-bhav

oops..Here is the link.

http://www.standardics.nxp.com/support/documents/microcontrollers/pdf/schematics.lpc313x.validation.board.pdf

 

[Jasen Betts]

On 2009-08-06, Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

Some ten year old cars used only for local journeys may only have done a
ten or twenty thousand miles. The engine in such a car would still be in
very good condition even if it is nominally a clunker.

In the UK the greedy car dealers have upped prices to absorb the clunker
rebate entirely - it isn't called the golden isle for nothing. Driving
on the wrong side of the road has a high price.

Import some used card from Japan, that's what we do in NZ.

 

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

JosephKK wrote:

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 14:46:36 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@notcoldmail.com> wrote:


Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:

Martin Riddle wrote:
Documenting destruction of perfectly good engines.
http://minx.cc/?post=290415
Insane.
My car is a VW Golf >10 years old and would qualify under the similar UK
scheme.
It does an *average* of 56mpg, and tops out at 75mpg at 55mph.
Quite. It's a disgrace that will take very efficient cars off the market.

Unless you can affors a NEW car will keep that 'clunker'. Pure political
insanity.

Graham

Perhaps it is part of the package to "save" the car companies and the
banks.

The really insane bit occurs in the UK, as usual.
Since 86% of our cars are imported we end up mostly supporting other
nations car industries

--
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5 - Our podcasts on weird stuff

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

On Wed, 09 Sep 2009 20:02:38 +0200, Richard Rasker
<spamtrap@linetec.nl> wrote:

Hi all,

I'm using an HCNR201 opto-isolator device in a galvanically isolated linear
signal transfer application. I have about two dozen of these in a not
completely unimportant application aboard sea ships, in a rather hostile
environment: the machine room, with heat (>40 degrees centigrade),
vibration and moisture. For these reasons, I designed the whole thing to be
very, very robust, and for a year or so, all was fine.

Recently, however, I got a complaint that one of those devices had failed,
and a bit of research showed that the opto-isolator was the cause: from the
outside, the LED still behaves like a LED diode, but none of the two photo
diodes produce any output -- which strongly suggests that the LED doesn't
produce any IR output any more.

Now I'm a bit puzzled by this, as the whole input circuitry is designed in
such a way that the opto-isolator LED would be among one of the very last
components to break down in case of a voltage spike or such -- there are
zener diodes, low-ohm SMD resistors and an SMD opamp which would blow
first, and under no conditions, should the total LED current be able to
exceed 15mA (with 40mA absolute maximum rating). Destructive testing with a
circuit here confirmed this: I managed to blow up a handful of parts --
twice -- but never the opto-isolator. Overvoltage, reverse voltage -- it's
all handled the way I designed it.

So my question: is this a simple case of "bad luck", or are there other ways
a LED in an opto-isolator may fail in this weird way (current OK, yet no
light)?

Thanks in advance, best regards,

Richard Rasker

When you say that the LED behaves like an LED diode, you mean that Vf
is just what you'd expect from figure 9 of the datasheet? Is the
reverse leakage close to typical values?

40mA is allowed for a maximum of 50ns (!).

Might just be bad luck.. but as someone else suggested, this sounds
like mechanical damage of some kind to me if the diode appears
electrically sound. No deliberate modification of the package such as
bending of leads? Could the package be cracked
at the leadframe or elsewhere due to inadequate support of the PCB?

 

[Joerg]

Spehro Pefhany wrote:

On Wed, 09 Sep 2009 20:02:38 +0200, Richard Rasker
spamtrap@linetec.nl> wrote:

Hi all,

I'm using an HCNR201 opto-isolator device in a galvanically isolated linear
signal transfer application. I have about two dozen of these in a not
completely unimportant application aboard sea ships, in a rather hostile
environment: the machine room, with heat (>40 degrees centigrade),
vibration and moisture. For these reasons, I designed the whole thing to be
very, very robust, and for a year or so, all was fine.

Recently, however, I got a complaint that one of those devices had failed,
and a bit of research showed that the opto-isolator was the cause: from the
outside, the LED still behaves like a LED diode, but none of the two photo
diodes produce any output -- which strongly suggests that the LED doesn't
produce any IR output any more.

Now I'm a bit puzzled by this, as the whole input circuitry is designed in
such a way that the opto-isolator LED would be among one of the very last
components to break down in case of a voltage spike or such -- there are
zener diodes, low-ohm SMD resistors and an SMD opamp which would blow
first, and under no conditions, should the total LED current be able to
exceed 15mA (with 40mA absolute maximum rating). Destructive testing with a
circuit here confirmed this: I managed to blow up a handful of parts --
twice -- but never the opto-isolator. Overvoltage, reverse voltage -- it's
all handled the way I designed it.

So my question: is this a simple case of "bad luck", or are there other ways
a LED in an opto-isolator may fail in this weird way (current OK, yet no
light)?

Thanks in advance, best regards,

Richard Rasker

When you say that the LED behaves like an LED diode, you mean that Vf
is just what you'd expect from figure 9 of the datasheet? Is the
reverse leakage close to typical values?

40mA is allowed for a maximum of 50ns (!).

Might just be bad luck.. but as someone else suggested, this sounds
like mechanical damage of some kind to me if the diode appears
electrically sound. No deliberate modification of the package such as
bending of leads? Could the package be cracked
at the leadframe or elsewhere due to inadequate support of the PCB?

Also, check the reflow profile at the assembly line. Since it looks like
this is European the higher temps of a lead-free process are much more
taxing on such devices than the older (and better) leaded process is.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

On Wed, 09 Sep 2009 20:55:49 +0200, Richard Rasker
<spamtrap@linetec.nl> wrote:

Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Wed, 09 Sep 2009 20:02:38 +0200) it happened Richard
Rasker <spamtrap@linetec.nl> wrote in
4aa7edbe$0$730$7ade8c0d@textreader.nntp.internl.net>:

So my question: is this a simple case of "bad luck", or are there other
ways a LED in an opto-isolator may fail in this weird way (current OK, yet
no light)?

Perhaps some part internal to the opto-isolater did break of due to
vibration and blocks the light path?
Did you open the defective one?

No, I didn't (yet) -- but isn't this very, very unlikely?

Richard Rasker

It's incredibly likely compared to what seems to be the only
alternative- an LED which acts exactly like a AlGaAs D but doesn't LE.

OTOH, an electrically damaged diode that measured something like a
short would not be unusual at all. Could be something like lightning
or RF damage. You don't have the opto in there because it's a benign
environment, eh?