PRC as a amplifier in GPS question.

[The Real Andy]

On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 11:36:43 +1000, "Rudolf" <xyz@xyz.com> wrote:

I use LCD -- make a lot of difference. It is much easier on eyes than CRT.
But... color reproduction is not as good on LCD as on CRT, so I will not
recommend it for people who do "graphical design".

I think I had this argument before, but true colour LCD's can be had.
When you consider the benchmark Sony for graphics/photography is
around US$2000-3000 the LCD's aren't that much more expensive.

As for Samsung 950... I would check caps in PS and around FBT as a first
measure.


Rudolf

"Bob Parker" <bobp.deletethis@bluebottle.com> wrote in message
news:ehet82t46m33rsf210ne5ic8aflgmardoj@4ax.com...
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 13:21:52 -0400, Yugo <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

Jasen Betts wrote:

After uplugging the mains there's dangeros voltages stored in two main
places
inside the picture tube, and in the reservoir capacitors, these charges
need to be avoided or dissipated.

How do you "dissipate" them? I would have thought it would ne better not
to unplug the monitor, so that it remains groundes, just turn the monitor
off.

If the fault is aging capacitors (and not a dodggy joint), it's a more
involved task... Don't ask you friend to fix it for you. (he probably
gets that line from too may others already) but he be able to give you
some pointers, (and can probably tell your skill level better than I).

From what I see now, it seems I'll buy a new LCD and keep the CRT in a
corner hoping that Gawd will send me the messiah. After a year or two with
no messiah in sight, I'll throw it away.


I'm reading all this on a fairly new Viewsonic VA912b 19" 1280x1024
LCD monitor. It has one dead pixel and a faint blemish about 1" long
near one corner.
But the brightness, contrast, colour accuracy and sharpness of this
thing (fed from the video card's DVI output) blows away every CRT
monitor I've ever seen... no going back for me.

Bob

 

[Bob Parker]

On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 11:36:43 +1000, "Rudolf" <xyz@xyz.com> wrote:

I use LCD -- make a lot of difference. It is much easier on eyes than CRT.
But... color reproduction is not as good on LCD as on CRT, so I will not
recommend it for people who do "graphical design".


As for Samsung 950... I would check caps in PS and around FBT as a first
measure.


Rudolf

I take an awful lot of digital photos (or is that a lot of awful
digital photos?). Anyway, I can't see anything wrong with the colour
reproduction of this LCD monitor. I also use it for PCB design and
it's much better in both applications than the CRT monitor it
replaced.
I always hated LCD monitors, but they seem to be getting a lot
better than the first ones on the market, with very wide viewing angle
and excellent contrast, brightness and colour.
That's my additional 2c worth anyway.


Bob

 

[Mr.T]

"Bob Parker" <bobp.deletethis@bluebottle.com> wrote in message
news:k5qv82lv4tcn0933csdh58ffh3nvmsemt3@4ax.com...

I take an awful lot of digital photos (or is that a lot of awful
digital photos?).

More than likely if you can't tell the difference between what you
photograph and a normal LCD monitor.

Anyway, I can't see anything wrong with the colour
reproduction of this LCD monitor.

Or your prints presumably.

I also use it for PCB design and
it's much better in both applications than the CRT monitor it
replaced.

Protel worked OK on a green screen once upon a time too

I always hated LCD monitors, but they seem to be getting a lot
better than the first ones on the market, with very wide viewing angle
and excellent contrast, brightness and colour.

Sure, if you can afford a professional one.

MrT.

 

[Ross Herbert]

On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 00:02:08 +1000, "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:

"Bob Parker" <bobp.deletethis@bluebottle.com> wrote in message
news:k5qv82lv4tcn0933csdh58ffh3nvmsemt3@4ax.com...
I take an awful lot of digital photos (or is that a lot of awful
digital photos?).

More than likely if you can't tell the difference between what you
photograph and a normal LCD monitor.

Anyway, I can't see anything wrong with the colour
reproduction of this LCD monitor.

Or your prints presumably.

I also use it for PCB design and
it's much better in both applications than the CRT monitor it
replaced.

Protel worked OK on a green screen once upon a time too

I always hated LCD monitors, but they seem to be getting a lot
better than the first ones on the market, with very wide viewing angle
and excellent contrast, brightness and colour.

Sure, if you can afford a professional one.

MrT.

It seems the debate LCD Vs CRT monitors is ongoing and is akin to
valves Vs transistors in the audio sphere.

My 2c worth...

I have 2 PC's running the same resolution side by side. One has a very
good Radeon 7000 AGP graphics card driving a Sony 19" Multi-scan 400PS
monitor which produces excellent results, while my newer PC - with a
Radeon X600XT PCIE graphics card - uses a Mitsubishi Diamond Digital
171JB (17") LCD monitor. Quite frankly, I still prefer the results
from the latter and I can't see any difference in colour grading or
other factors on photo images from one to the other. The Sony cost me
$1500 a few years ago whereas the LCD cost me around $600 or
thereabouts 12 months back.

 

[Mr.T]

"Ross Herbert" <rherber1@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:3rd192le7t9sj80ksfk1jh16icokuo6knj@4ax.com...

It seems the debate LCD Vs CRT monitors is ongoing and is akin to
valves Vs transistors in the audio sphere.

Not at all, people pay far more for valve equipment with measureably
inferior performance, because they prefer the sound (for whatever reason) or
the look.
I'd be QUITE happy to pay the same, or similar, for an LCD display with
measureably the same or better color performance as my CRT. Simple as that.
I expect one day I will be able to do so!

I have 2 PC's running the same resolution side by side. One has a very
good Radeon 7000 AGP graphics card driving a Sony 19" Multi-scan 400PS
monitor which produces excellent results, while my newer PC - with a
Radeon X600XT PCIE graphics card - uses a Mitsubishi Diamond Digital
171JB (17") LCD monitor. Quite frankly, I still prefer the results
from the latter and I can't see any difference in colour grading or
other factors on photo images from one to the other. The Sony cost me
$1500 a few years ago whereas the LCD cost me around $600 or
thereabouts 12 months back.

I'm glad your happy, but has nothing to do with pricing Vs performance
comparison for non professional monitors at the same time of purchase.
My current Pentium outperforms my old 386 for less dollars too (or even an
old PDP11 but it's hardly relevant.
Name one LCD that outperforms a $200 19" CRT for the same price for example?
Have you actually tried properly profiling your LCD or CRT, or are you just
talking out of the box, uncalibrated performance?

I do admit LCD will win easily very soon, if not already, as CRT's stop
being made. Whatever remains in manufacture will be expensive.
Fortunately there are new technologies on the way to improve flat panel
performance. Hopefully I can wait until then.

MrT.

 

[Rudolf]

I use mine for editing photos and PCB work as well.

i am talking about professional image editing -- CRT can reproduce more
colors and those are close to real ones you will get at printing.

Rudolf

"Bob Parker" <bobp.deletethis@bluebottle.com> wrote in message
news:k5qv82lv4tcn0933csdh58ffh3nvmsemt3@4ax.com...

On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 11:36:43 +1000, "Rudolf" <xyz@xyz.com> wrote:

I use LCD -- make a lot of difference. It is much easier on eyes than CRT.
But... color reproduction is not as good on LCD as on CRT, so I will not
recommend it for people who do "graphical design".


As for Samsung 950... I would check caps in PS and around FBT as a first
measure.


Rudolf

I take an awful lot of digital photos (or is that a lot of awful
digital photos?). Anyway, I can't see anything wrong with the colour
reproduction of this LCD monitor. I also use it for PCB design and
it's much better in both applications than the CRT monitor it
replaced.
I always hated LCD monitors, but they seem to be getting a lot
better than the first ones on the market, with very wide viewing angle
and excellent contrast, brightness and colour.
That's my additional 2c worth anyway.


Bob

 

[swanny]

Ross Herbert wrote:

On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 00:02:08 +1000, "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:


"Bob Parker" <bobp.deletethis@bluebottle.com> wrote in message
news:k5qv82lv4tcn0933csdh58ffh3nvmsemt3@4ax.com...

I take an awful lot of digital photos (or is that a lot of awful
digital photos?).

More than likely if you can't tell the difference between what you
photograph and a normal LCD monitor.


Anyway, I can't see anything wrong with the colour
reproduction of this LCD monitor.

Or your prints presumably.


I also use it for PCB design and
it's much better in both applications than the CRT monitor it
replaced.

Protel worked OK on a green screen once upon a time too


I always hated LCD monitors, but they seem to be getting a lot
better than the first ones on the market, with very wide viewing angle
and excellent contrast, brightness and colour.

Sure, if you can afford a professional one.

MrT.




It seems the debate LCD Vs CRT monitors is ongoing and is akin to
valves Vs transistors in the audio sphere.

My 2c worth...

I have 2 PC's running the same resolution side by side. One has a very
good Radeon 7000 AGP graphics card driving a Sony 19" Multi-scan 400PS
monitor which produces excellent results, while my newer PC - with a
Radeon X600XT PCIE graphics card - uses a Mitsubishi Diamond Digital
171JB (17") LCD monitor. Quite frankly, I still prefer the results
from the latter and I can't see any difference in colour grading or
other factors on photo images from one to the other. The Sony cost me
$1500 a few years ago whereas the LCD cost me around $600 or
thereabouts 12 months back.

Try getting hold of a Spyder or such like monitor calibration tool. Many
of the LCD screens had poor color consistency across the display
compared to CRT monitors and were difficuly to properly calibrate fpr
professional use.

Still, display technology is getting better all the time and you can't
beat a pair of 17" or 19" LCD's on a PC for a huge productivity gain.

 

[The Real Andy]

On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 13:41:34 +1000, "Rudolf" <xyz@xyz.com> wrote:

I use mine for editing photos and PCB work as well.

i am talking about professional image editing -- CRT can reproduce more
colors and those are close to real ones you will get at printing.

Rudolf

The psuedo standard CRT for photography/graphics/colour is the Sony
Artisan monitor, which will set you back around US$2000, if you can
still buy one.

For around AU$2000, one can now buy an EIZO monitor the same size as
the Sony. Couple this with a McBeth Eye-One or a SPyder calibrator and
you have what the Pro's use.

There is also quite a lot off buzz surounding the LaCie monitors for
professional use. It seems these are fast becoming the Artisan version
of the LCD, and they come with a calibrator. These are sitting close
to AU$3000 for a 21", so they almost beat the Artisan for price.

I think you will struggle to find many pro's that still use CRT's
these days.

"Bob Parker" <bobp.deletethis@bluebottle.com> wrote in message
news:k5qv82lv4tcn0933csdh58ffh3nvmsemt3@4ax.com...
On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 11:36:43 +1000, "Rudolf" <xyz@xyz.com> wrote:

I use LCD -- make a lot of difference. It is much easier on eyes than CRT.
But... color reproduction is not as good on LCD as on CRT, so I will not
recommend it for people who do "graphical design".


As for Samsung 950... I would check caps in PS and around FBT as a first
measure.


Rudolf

I take an awful lot of digital photos (or is that a lot of awful
digital photos?). Anyway, I can't see anything wrong with the colour
reproduction of this LCD monitor. I also use it for PCB design and
it's much better in both applications than the CRT monitor it
replaced.
I always hated LCD monitors, but they seem to be getting a lot
better than the first ones on the market, with very wide viewing angle
and excellent contrast, brightness and colour.
That's my additional 2c worth anyway.


Bob

 

[The Real Andy]

On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 17:37:31 +1000, The Real Andy
<will_get_back_to_you_on_This@b.c> wrote:

On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 13:41:34 +1000, "Rudolf" <xyz@xyz.com> wrote:

I use mine for editing photos and PCB work as well.

i am talking about professional image editing -- CRT can reproduce more
colors and those are close to real ones you will get at printing.

Rudolf

The psuedo standard CRT for photography/graphics/colour is the Sony
Artisan monitor, which will set you back around US$2000, if you can
still buy one.

For around AU$2000, one can now buy an EIZO monitor the same size as
the Sony. Couple this with a McBeth Eye-One or a SPyder calibrator and
you have what the Pro's use.

There is also quite a lot off buzz surounding the LaCie monitors for
professional use. It seems these are fast becoming the Artisan version
of the LCD, and they come with a calibrator. These are sitting close
to AU$3000 for a 21", so they almost beat the Artisan for price.

I think you will struggle to find many pro's that still use CRT's
these days.

Oh, and I almost missed the new player on the block, NEC.

http://www.necdisplay.com/products/ProductDetail.cfm?Product=425

coming in at nearly US$7000. Its had some good reviews though. This
technology will become the new standard.

 

[Ross Herbert]

On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 12:59:11 +1000, "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:

"Ross Herbert" <rherber1@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:3rd192le7t9sj80ksfk1jh16icokuo6knj@4ax.com...
It seems the debate LCD Vs CRT monitors is ongoing and is akin to
valves Vs transistors in the audio sphere.

Not at all, people pay far more for valve equipment with measureably
inferior performance, because they prefer the sound (for whatever reason) or
the look.
I'd be QUITE happy to pay the same, or similar, for an LCD display with
measureably the same or better color performance as my CRT. Simple as that.
I expect one day I will be able to do so!

I have 2 PC's running the same resolution side by side. One has a very
good Radeon 7000 AGP graphics card driving a Sony 19" Multi-scan 400PS
monitor which produces excellent results, while my newer PC - with a
Radeon X600XT PCIE graphics card - uses a Mitsubishi Diamond Digital
171JB (17") LCD monitor. Quite frankly, I still prefer the results
from the latter and I can't see any difference in colour grading or
other factors on photo images from one to the other. The Sony cost me
$1500 a few years ago whereas the LCD cost me around $600 or
thereabouts 12 months back.

I'm glad your happy, but has nothing to do with pricing Vs performance
comparison for non professional monitors at the same time of purchase.
My current Pentium outperforms my old 386 for less dollars too (or even an
old PDP11 but it's hardly relevant.

So you are saying that if you had the choice of a CRT monitor for say
$1500 and an LCD for $600, and their performance was near enough
identical in your view, you would still opt for the CRT?

I gave pricing purely for reference. If I bought a CRT and an LCD
today, of course the prices would be lower. But I would be prepared to
bet that a good CRT which performs as well as a good LCD would still
be more expensive. Therefore, given the equivalence in performance,
and without taking into consideration any other factors, the majority
of people would think that price is relevant.

Name one LCD that outperforms a $200 19" CRT for the same price for example?
Have you actually tried properly profiling your LCD or CRT, or are you just
talking out of the box, uncalibrated performance?

No, I haven't gone around comparing $200 19" CRT displays at all,
either with other CRT's or LCD's. However, I am damned sure that
finding an LCD to perform as well as your hypothetical $200 CRT would
be all too easy.

I am talking from a purely subjective assessment which is all that
counts for anything other than professional graphics/photographics.
This would account for around 99% of all users.

I do admit LCD will win easily very soon, if not already, as CRT's stop
being made. Whatever remains in manufacture will be expensive.
Fortunately there are new technologies on the way to improve flat panel
performance. Hopefully I can wait until then.

I think that time is almost here already. Philips, for example, have
teamed up with LG for CRT production and their tubes are now made in
China. Sony have stopped CRT production.

Quite likely that due to the decreasing demand for the best grade of
CRT's for professional applications they will become extremely
expensive, even unjustifiably so, and pricing will force even the
strongest CRT diehards to accept LCD. Perhaps if they can wait long
enough OLED displays will start to become available.

 

[Mr.T]

"swanny" <blahgswan3blah@blahbigpondblah.comblah.blahau> wrote in message
news:OF5kg.9671$ap3.4633@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

Try getting hold of a Spyder or such like monitor calibration tool. Many
of the LCD screens had poor color consistency across the display
compared to CRT monitors and were difficuly to properly calibrate fpr
professional use.
Still, display technology is getting better all the time and you can't
beat a pair of 17" or 19" LCD's on a PC for a huge productivity gain.

Sure you can, use a CRT and LCD.

MrT.

 

[Ross Herbert]

On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 04:49:50 GMT, swanny
<blahgswan3blah@blahbigpondblah.comblah.blahau> wrote:

Ross Herbert wrote:

On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 00:02:08 +1000, "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:


"Bob Parker" <bobp.deletethis@bluebottle.com> wrote in message
news:k5qv82lv4tcn0933csdh58ffh3nvmsemt3@4ax.com...

I take an awful lot of digital photos (or is that a lot of awful
digital photos?).

More than likely if you can't tell the difference between what you
photograph and a normal LCD monitor.


Anyway, I can't see anything wrong with the colour
reproduction of this LCD monitor.

Or your prints presumably.


I also use it for PCB design and
it's much better in both applications than the CRT monitor it
replaced.

Protel worked OK on a green screen once upon a time too


I always hated LCD monitors, but they seem to be getting a lot
better than the first ones on the market, with very wide viewing angle
and excellent contrast, brightness and colour.

Sure, if you can afford a professional one.

MrT.




It seems the debate LCD Vs CRT monitors is ongoing and is akin to
valves Vs transistors in the audio sphere.

My 2c worth...

I have 2 PC's running the same resolution side by side. One has a very
good Radeon 7000 AGP graphics card driving a Sony 19" Multi-scan 400PS
monitor which produces excellent results, while my newer PC - with a
Radeon X600XT PCIE graphics card - uses a Mitsubishi Diamond Digital
171JB (17") LCD monitor. Quite frankly, I still prefer the results
from the latter and I can't see any difference in colour grading or
other factors on photo images from one to the other. The Sony cost me
$1500 a few years ago whereas the LCD cost me around $600 or
thereabouts 12 months back.

Try getting hold of a Spyder or such like monitor calibration tool. Many
of the LCD screens had poor color consistency across the display
compared to CRT monitors and were difficuly to properly calibrate fpr
professional use.

Still, display technology is getting better all the time and you can't
beat a pair of 17" or 19" LCD's on a PC for a huge productivity gain.

Putting it in a nutshell, I concur with your assessment.

 

[Ross Herbert]

On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 17:48:23 +1000, The Real Andy
<will_get_back_to_you_on_This@b.c> wrote:

On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 17:37:31 +1000, The Real Andy
will_get_back_to_you_on_This@b.c> wrote:

On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 13:41:34 +1000, "Rudolf" <xyz@xyz.com> wrote:

I use mine for editing photos and PCB work as well.

i am talking about professional image editing -- CRT can reproduce more
colors and those are close to real ones you will get at printing.

Rudolf

The psuedo standard CRT for photography/graphics/colour is the Sony
Artisan monitor, which will set you back around US$2000, if you can
still buy one.

For around AU$2000, one can now buy an EIZO monitor the same size as
the Sony. Couple this with a McBeth Eye-One or a SPyder calibrator and
you have what the Pro's use.

There is also quite a lot off buzz surounding the LaCie monitors for
professional use. It seems these are fast becoming the Artisan version
of the LCD, and they come with a calibrator. These are sitting close
to AU$3000 for a 21", so they almost beat the Artisan for price.

I think you will struggle to find many pro's that still use CRT's
these days.


Oh, and I almost missed the new player on the block, NEC.

http://www.necdisplay.com/products/ProductDetail.cfm?Product=425

coming in at nearly US$7000. Its had some good reviews though. This
technology will become the new standard.

When the price drops a bit I might buy the CAD version. Could be a
while yet though :-(

 

[Mr.T]

"The Real Andy" <will_get_back_to_you_on_This@b.c> wrote in message
news:i04292tuk30en77epra0h5baduhau4cru9@4ax.com...

Oh, and I almost missed the new player on the block, NEC.

http://www.necdisplay.com/products/ProductDetail.cfm?Product=425

coming in at nearly US$7000. Its had some good reviews though. This
technology will become the new standard.

Maybe when the price drops of course.

MrT.

 

[Mr.T]

"Ross Herbert" <rherber1@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:fn8292lc80jveoheh3d5uanatru6pls7vd@4ax.com...

So you are saying that if you had the choice of a CRT monitor for say
$1500 and an LCD for $600, and their performance was near enough
identical in your view, you would still opt for the CRT?

Is that what YOU read?
I did pay that much for a totally crap CRT, but that was 20 years ago and
technology has moved on, just as you have proven.
My last CRT was far better and far cheaper. My LCD bought not long after,
was both dearer and inferior.

I gave pricing purely for reference. If I bought a CRT and an LCD
today, of course the prices would be lower. But I would be prepared to
bet that a good CRT which performs as well as a good LCD would still
be more expensive.

That would simply depend on your definition of "good".
However since CRT development and production has almost ceased, LCD's will
inevitably beat CRT's due to non availability of the latter.

Name one LCD that outperforms a $200 19" CRT for the same price for
example?
Have you actually tried properly profiling your LCD or CRT, or are you
just
talking out of the box, uncalibrated performance?

No, I haven't gone around comparing $200 19" CRT displays at all,
either with other CRT's or LCD's. However, I am damned sure that
finding an LCD to perform as well as your hypothetical $200 CRT would
be all too easy.

Let me know when you find one then! At least the CRT is not hypothetical,
but lack of demand means they wont stay in production. In fact there are
very few to choose from these days.

I am talking from a purely subjective assessment which is all that
counts for anything other than professional graphics/photographics.
This would account for around 99% of all users.

Actually a *large* majority of computer users take digital photo's, then
wonder why the prints look nothing like what they see on the LCD screen.
I hear this complaint all the time. Profiling most LCD's is an interesting
excercise in futility.

I do admit LCD will win easily very soon, if not already, as CRT's stop
being made. Whatever remains in manufacture will be expensive.
Fortunately there are new technologies on the way to improve flat panel
performance. Hopefully I can wait until then.


I think that time is almost here already. Philips, for example, have
teamed up with LG for CRT production and their tubes are now made in
China. Sony have stopped CRT production.

Yep, all very unfortunate, but not unexpected.

Quite likely that due to the decreasing demand for the best grade of
CRT's for professional applications they will become extremely
expensive, even unjustifiably so, and pricing will force even the
strongest CRT diehards to accept LCD. Perhaps if they can wait long
enough OLED displays will start to become available.

Isn't that what I've been saying, except the price will also take a while to
fall to mainstream.

MrT.

 

[Bob Parker]

On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 00:02:08 +1000, "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:

"Bob Parker" <bobp.deletethis@bluebottle.com> wrote in message
news:k5qv82lv4tcn0933csdh58ffh3nvmsemt3@4ax.com...
I take an awful lot of digital photos (or is that a lot of awful
digital photos?).

More than likely if you can't tell the difference between what you
photograph and a normal LCD monitor.

Anyway, I can't see anything wrong with the colour
reproduction of this LCD monitor.

Or your prints presumably.

I also use it for PCB design and
it's much better in both applications than the CRT monitor it
replaced.

Protel worked OK on a green screen once upon a time too

I always hated LCD monitors, but they seem to be getting a lot
better than the first ones on the market, with very wide viewing angle
and excellent contrast, brightness and colour.

Sure, if you can afford a professional one.

MrT.

Your comments have been duly noted and given the consideration they
deserve.

Bob

 

[Phil Allison]

"Derek Hockley"

HI, can anyone tell me where I can get a circuit diagram for a TEAC
CT-M342H colour television please?

** From Teac Australia in Melbourne - for a fee.

They normally send you a large envelope stuffed with partial photocopies of
a wall map sized schematic.

Then YOU get to have all the fun piecing and taping it together.





....... Phil

 

[Bob Parker]

On Sat, 1 Jul 2006 21:02:54 +0930, "Derek Hockley"
<dhockley@adam.com.au> wrote:

HI, can anyone tell me where I can get a circuit diagram for a TEAC CT-M342H
colour television please?

Thaks in anticipation

D Hockley
Adelaide

If that's your real e-mail address, you should get it very soon.

Bob

 

[David]

I agree totally good stuff
Lushy VK3HDL
"GB" <gb0506@kickindanuts.threefiddy.com> wrote in message
news:12agfbnt5s7868c@corp.supernews.com...

Bob Parker <bobp.deletethis@bluebottle.com> wrote in
news:l9qaa2ds0ikaf7gjhfpaajecjqpq02qtu2@4ax.com:
While searching for something else, I discovered a 2MB 127 page
.pdf file which is full of useful reference info about electronics,
components and things related to electronics, with a lot of handy
charts etc. Well worth the 2MB download, I thought.
It's at www.elfa.se/en/fakta.pdf

Many aus.aviators and aus.motians will also find this reference
invaluable, so I've taken the liberty of cross-posting it.

This one is a keeper in my view. Table of contents is as
follows:

Fuses
Residual current devices
Lights/Lamps
Switches/Relays
Sensors
Fans
Heatsinks
Pneumatic components
Connectors
PCB production
Enclosures
19" enclosure systems
Cables
Optofibre
Inductors
Resistors
Potentiometers
Capacitors
Diodes
Transistors/Thyristors
Optical components
Linear integrated circuits
A/D, D/A converters
Logic circuits
Microprocessors
Memory circuits
Thermionic valves
Transformers
Batteries/Rechargeable batteries
Solar cells and solar panels
Power supplies
Computer products
Data communication
Process control and computing
Measuring instruments
Environmental monitoring
Aerials
Radio communication
Tools and production aids
Electro static discharge
Screwdrivers
Pliers, Cutters
Chemicals
Adhesives/Bonding
Soldering
Wire wrapping
Do-It-Yourself kits
Plastics
Units and constants
Units
8-bit ASCII table
Electromagnetic radiation
Conversion table, inches/mm

HTH,

GB
--
"Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the
entrails of the last priest." (Diderot, paraphrasing Meslier)

 

[swanny]

rob wrote:

"Bob Parker" <bobp.deletethis@bluebottle.com> wrote in message
news:l9qaa2ds0ikaf7gjhfpaajecjqpq02qtu2@4ax.com...
Hi,
While searching for something else, I discovered a 2MB 127 page
.pdf file which is full of useful reference info about electronics,
components and things related to electronics, with a lot of handy
charts etc. Well worth the 2MB download, I thought.
It's at www.elfa.se/en/fakta.pdf

Bob



Cheers Bob. Some useful stuff.


Very handy. Couldn't find a periodic table in it though.