PRC as a amplifier in GPS question.

[Bob Parker]

On 19/09/2007 16:57 Franc Zabkar wrote:

I wonder if the new plugpack is plug and voltage compatible with the
older ones? Does the phone even use the same battery as the older
models, or does it just use the same cells in an incompatible package?

Call me a cynic, but if the phone manufacturers want to be really
green, then they should supply standardised accessories at a price
that would make retaining the phone an economical option. As it is
now, the only reason I still don't use my old Ericsson is that a
replacement battery costs almost as much as a new phone, assuming you
can find one that hasn't expired on the shelf.

BTW, I wonder if the energy used in manufacturing these EnergyStar
plugpacks is actually offset by the power savings during the life of
the unit. I also wonder how power factor affects the VA as opposed to
the wattage, and I wonder whether this has been considered when
awarding EnergyStar ratings.

- Franc Zabkar

One of my mates had to stop using his old Ericsson phone because of
battery unavailability. Now he uses a Nokia 3310 he found dumped during
a council cleanup.
I saw an item on the ABC news not that long ago which said that the
typical life of a mobile phone in Australia is only 18 months before it
gets replaced by the latest model with more gadgets.
It's hard not to be cynical!

Bob

 

[David L. Jones]

On Sep 19, 4:57 pm, Franc Zabkar <fzab...@iinternode.on.net> wrote:

On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 07:01:37 +1000, Bob Parker
bobp.deletet...@bluebottle.com> put finger to keyboard and composed:



On 19/09/2007 06:56 Franc Zabkar wrote:
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 02:56:28 -0700, "David L. Jones"
altz...@gmail.com> put finger to keyboard and composed:

I just got a new Nokia mobile phone and it came with a switchmode
mains charger plugpack as many of them do these days, but this one has
an Energy Star label saying this adapter was energy star compliant for
reduced consumption. This is the first time I've seen this on any
plugpack, so I thought I'd test it out.

I got 0.12W on my energy meter with no phone connected. Compare that
with 0.55W for my old Nokia transformer plugpack, and 0.55W for a
(presumably non-energy star compliant) Motorola switchmode plugpack.

That's a big saving, especially when you multiply it by a few tens of
millions of phones. Very nice indeed.

Dave.

My charger sits in the drawer until I need it. That's 0.00W when no
phone is connected. Furthermore, my phone doesn't have any unnecessary
energy wasting features such as cameras and the like.

- Franc Zabkar

Same here.

I wonder if the new plugpack is plug and voltage compatible with the
older ones?

Yes.

Does the phone even use the same battery as the older
models, or does it just use the same cells in an incompatible package?

The Nokia's have a reasonable amount of compatibility among models,
but there are quite a number of different batteries used in the range.
Almost certainly necessary because of physical and other design
differences between models.

I lot of portable gear like mobile phones, in-car GPS units, and
handheld GPS units can now be recharged from the USB port, this means
you only need one type of charger either in the car or at home. Expect
this to become much more standard in the comming years I suspect.

Call me a cynic, but if the phone manufacturers want to be really
green, then they should supply standardised accessories at a price
that would make retaining the phone an economical option.

As it is
now, the only reason I still don't use my old Ericsson is that a
replacement battery costs almost as much as a new phone, assuming you
can find one that hasn't expired on the shelf.

BTW, I wonder if the energy used in manufacturing these EnergyStar
plugpacks is actually offset by the power savings during the life of
the unit.

That question is almost impossible to answer with any authority on any
product. But a well designed energy-star switchmode plugpack probably
requires no more "energy" to manufacture than a standard switchmode
plugpack that takes 5 times the power. Just from an engineering
elegance point of view alone it's worth doing.

Dave.

 

[kreed]

On Sep 19, 3:49 pm, Bob Parker <bobp.deletet...@bluebottle.com> wrote:

On 19/09/2007 08:06 kreed wrote:



Try finding a phone these days without a camera . Last time I
looked at the local Telstra shop, (over a year ago) even the cheapest
models all had cameras.

Will have to face up to this in the new year, as my current CDMA will
be useless, and will be forced to upgrade to a next G phone with all
these fancy features. from what I hear, as a bonus, the coverage will
be sub-standard outside major cities, but hey, look on the bright
side, in addition to the cameras, MP3 Players, FM radio, etc etc we
will also have fancy "must have" features like pay TV and "mobile
internet at broadband speed " that I, and most people would never use,
and wouldn't pay typically excessive access fees for. What happened to
the people (surely a significant number) who just want a phone that
they can use reliably ?

We're still hanging onto our dinosaur 2001 model basic Nokia GSM
phones and hoping that batteries will continue to be available for them
for a long time. Even if they're not fashionable...

Bob

In my case, GSM is useless in most of the areas I work in.
Got to use CDMA, in about 4 months the network is scheduled to close

probably have to go to Next G (replacement for CDMA that telstra is
pushing),
but colleagues who already have used it are less than impressed with
coverage, dropouts etc.

maybe it would be easier to make people call when im at home in
evenings etc

 

[Bob Parker]

On 19/09/2007 21:20 kreed wrote:

In my case, GSM is useless in most of the areas I work in.
Got to use CDMA, in about 4 months the network is scheduled to close

probably have to go to Next G (replacement for CDMA that telstra is
pushing),
but colleagues who already have used it are less than impressed with
coverage, dropouts etc.

maybe it would be easier to make people call when im at home in
evenings etc

GSM's useless in lots of places outside the cities. From what I'm
told, CDMA gives pretty good coverage in most areas of the bush as well
as the metro areas.
After investing in that network not that many years ago, now they
plan to scrap it and replace it with something which is no better and
quite likely not as good for simple voice communication.
Sorta makes me think of the old "Yes, Minister" TV series.

Bob

 

[Poxy]

David L. Jones wrote:

On Sep 19, 4:57 pm, Franc Zabkar <fzab...@iinternode.on.net> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 07:01:37 +1000, Bob Parker
bobp.deletet...@bluebottle.com> put finger to keyboard and composed:



On 19/09/2007 06:56 Franc Zabkar wrote:
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 02:56:28 -0700, "David L. Jones"
altz...@gmail.com> put finger to keyboard and composed:

I just got a new Nokia mobile phone and it came with a switchmode
mains charger plugpack as many of them do these days, but this
one has an Energy Star label saying this adapter was energy star
compliant for reduced consumption. This is the first time I've
seen this on any plugpack, so I thought I'd test it out.

I got 0.12W on my energy meter with no phone connected. Compare
that with 0.55W for my old Nokia transformer plugpack, and 0.55W
for a (presumably non-energy star compliant) Motorola switchmode
plugpack.

That's a big saving, especially when you multiply it by a few
tens of millions of phones. Very nice indeed.

Dave.

My charger sits in the drawer until I need it. That's 0.00W when no
phone is connected. Furthermore, my phone doesn't have any
unnecessary energy wasting features such as cameras and the like.

- Franc Zabkar

Same here.

I wonder if the new plugpack is plug and voltage compatible with the
older ones?

Yes.

Does the phone even use the same battery as the older
models, or does it just use the same cells in an incompatible
package?

The Nokia's have a reasonable amount of compatibility among models,
but there are quite a number of different batteries used in the range.
Almost certainly necessary because of physical and other design
differences between models.

I lot of portable gear like mobile phones, in-car GPS units, and
handheld GPS units can now be recharged from the USB port, this means
you only need one type of charger either in the car or at home. Expect
this to become much more standard in the comming years I suspect.

Except there's a current limit on USB? My phone (Sony K750i) says "charging"
when connected via USB, and "optimised charging" when connected to a mains
or car charger, although the mains charger is rated to put out 450mA and I
thought USB allowed 500mA, so that might not be the case.

 

On Sep 19, 9:42 pm, Bob Parker <bobp.deletet...@bluebottle.com> wrote:

On 19/09/2007 21:20 kreed wrote:



In my case, GSM is useless in most of the areas I work in.
Got to use CDMA, in about 4 months the network is scheduled to close

probably have to go to Next G (replacement for CDMA that telstra is
pushing),
but colleagues who already have used it are less than impressed with
coverage, dropouts etc.

maybe it would be easier to make people call when im at home in
evenings etc

GSM's useless in lots of places outside the cities. From what I'm
told, CDMA gives pretty good coverage in most areas of the bush as well
as the metro areas.
After investing in that network not that many years ago, now they
plan to scrap it and replace it with something which is no better and
quite likely not as good for simple voice communication.

No better? It's heaps better! How else can Telstra piggyback value-add
data services on top of their network? It would be a really useful
advantage to be able to replace a perfectly good CDMA system with a
new network that allows more money to be made. It also results in a
fast data network that can reach areas that other providers can't
afford to match. The bonus is that the government subsidize it and
Telstra get an uncompetitive advantage.

It is surprising how many customers will sign with Telstra just
because of the coverage that they can offer.

Oh, you meant it is no better for you... well that may be the case

Sorta makes me think of the old "Yes, Minister" TV series.

'not as good for simple voice communication'? There's too much
competition there already, so it was sold to the government as being
the only way to deliver broadband internet to remote users. It also
just happens to be a great platform for offering other services.

Bob

 

[Bob Parker]

On 20/09/2007 13:48 dale-google@monsya.net wrote:

No better? It's heaps better! How else can Telstra piggyback value-add
data services on top of their network? It would be a really useful
advantage to be able to replace a perfectly good CDMA system with a
new network that allows more money to be made. It also results in a
fast data network that can reach areas that other providers can't
afford to match. The bonus is that the government subsidize it and
Telstra get an uncompetitive advantage.

It is surprising how many customers will sign with Telstra just
because of the coverage that they can offer.

Oh, you meant it is no better for you... well that may be the case

You should read what me and others have been writing. I'm on the
terribly old-fashioned (Vodafone) GSM network and I don't have
first-hand experience with 3G. I'm referring to basic coverage for voice
services in the bush. Many people have told me that the 3G network has
inferior coverage in the bush to CDMA and silly me has taken them
seriously. Thanks for telling us that there isn't a problem after all.

Sorta makes me think of the old "Yes, Minister" TV series.

'not as good for simple voice communication'? There's too much
competition there already, so it was sold to the government as being
the only way to deliver broadband internet to remote users. It also
just happens to be a great platform for offering other services.

Maybe it does have great bandwidth for providing all the things you
personally want in your phone. I'm talking about basic voice coverage.

 

[kreed]

On Sep 20, 2:56 pm, Bob Parker <bobp.deletet...@bluebottle.com> wrote:

On 20/09/2007 13:48 dale-goo...@monsya.net wrote:



No better? It's heaps better! How else can Telstra piggyback value-add
data services on top of their network? It would be a really useful
advantage to be able to replace a perfectly good CDMA system with a
new network that allows more money to be made. It also results in a
fast data network that can reach areas that other providers can't
afford to match. The bonus is that the government subsidize it and
Telstra get an uncompetitive advantage.

It is surprising how many customers will sign with Telstra just
because of the coverage that they can offer.

Oh, you meant it is no better for you... well that may be the case

You should read what me and others have been writing. I'm on the
terribly old-fashioned (Vodafone) GSM network and I don't have
first-hand experience with 3G. I'm referring to basic coverage for voice
services in the bush. Many people have told me that the 3G network has
inferior coverage in the bush to CDMA and silly me has taken them
seriously. Thanks for telling us that there isn't a problem after all.

Sorta makes me think of the old "Yes, Minister" TV series.

'not as good for simple voice communication'? There's too much
competition there already, so it was sold to the government as being
the only way to deliver broadband internet to remote users. It also
just happens to be a great platform for offering other services.

Maybe it does have great bandwidth for providing all the things you
personally want in your phone. I'm talking about basic voice coverage.

Are you referring to 3G or Next G ?
Apparently they are different systems - and on telstra's online
coverage maps, each has a separate map.

(in addition to the GSM map.)

I have a friend who travels frequently by road Melb-Cairns and
everywhere between on the major roads. They were supplied with CDMA,
phones some years back which have worked quite well for their
purposes. Recently they were "upgraded" to Next G (which is pushed as
a replacement for CDMA). The Next G coverage (for basic voice service)
is not as good as CDMA in his opinion, there are many less places
where you can get usable signal.

Obviously this may vary a lot depending on where you intend to use the
phone, and it is possible that telstra are improving things leading up
to the CDMA closure (jan 28 2008).

In my case, I rarely make calls, and I carry the mobile phone only so
I can be contactable for work (incoming), or for emergency use. If I
want to go onto the net, I will wait until I get home, and the same
with making phone calls too. If I want to take a picture, I will use a
camera. I have no interest in paying $4+ a message to download
ringtones, porn pics, dating services, contests etc that are forever
being advertised on late evening TV

Telstra would make little out of me per month but I can see clearly
how quickly their coffers would fill from the people who do make use
of these services, and why it makes business sense to push these
services.

 

[Bob Parker]

On 20/09/2007 17:02 kreed wrote:

Are you referring to 3G or Next G ?
Apparently they are different systems - and on telstra's online
coverage maps, each has a separate map.

Shows how out of touch I am - I didn't realise there's a difference,
because I'm still using GSM and I haven't been interested. I think I
better stay out of this discussion for that reason.

(in addition to the GSM map.)

I have a friend who travels frequently by road Melb-Cairns and
everywhere between on the major roads. They were supplied with CDMA,
phones some years back which have worked quite well for their
purposes. Recently they were "upgraded" to Next G (which is pushed as
a replacement for CDMA). The Next G coverage (for basic voice service)
is not as good as CDMA in his opinion, there are many less places
where you can get usable signal.

That's the same story I've been hearing.

In my case, I rarely make calls, and I carry the mobile phone only so
I can be contactable for work (incoming), or for emergency use. If I
want to go onto the net, I will wait until I get home, and the same
with making phone calls too. If I want to take a picture, I will use a
camera. I have no interest in paying $4+ a message to download
ringtones, porn pics, dating services, contests etc that are forever
being advertised on late evening TV

Exactly the same here!

Telstra would make little out of me per month but I can see clearly
how quickly their coffers would fill from the people who do make use
of these services, and why it makes business sense to push these
services.

My thoughts too.

 

[kreed]

On Sep 20, 5:40 pm, Bob Parker <bobp.deletet...@bluebottle.com> wrote:

On 20/09/2007 17:02 kreed wrote:



Are you referring to 3G or Next G ?
Apparently they are different systems - and on telstra's online
coverage maps, each has a separate map.

Shows how out of touch I am - I didn't realise there's a difference,
because I'm still using GSM and I haven't been interested. I think I
better stay out of this discussion for that reason.


I didnt realise either until about 3 months back.

It seems 3g was something they tried here that didnt seem to take off
(again supported video phones, better data rates, more network
capacity, and this is now being filled by Next G)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3g

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_g
(mostly about telstra, but does have some amount of info hidden in
there

(in addition to the GSM map.)

I have a friend who travels frequently by road Melb-Cairns and
everywhere between on the major roads. They were supplied with CDMA,
phones some years back which have worked quite well for their
purposes. Recently they were "upgraded" to Next G (which is pushed as
a replacement for CDMA). The Next G coverage (for basic voice service)
is not as good as CDMA in his opinion, there are many less places
where you can get usable signal.

That's the same story I've been hearing.

The other story is that it drains the battery incredibly fast, under

certain circumstances that I cant remember now, so much so that with
some models (in 2006) I was told that they actually provided an extra
charger

In my case, I rarely make calls, and I carry the mobile phone only so
I can be contactable for work (incoming), or for emergency use. If I
want to go onto the net, I will wait until I get home, and the same
with making phone calls too. If I want to take a picture, I will use a
camera. I have no interest in paying $4+ a message to download
ringtones, porn pics, dating services, contests etc that are forever
being advertised on late evening TV

Exactly the same here!

Telstra would make little out of me per month but I can see clearly
how quickly their coffers would fill from the people who do make use
of these services, and why it makes business sense to push these
services.

My thoughts too.

 

[David L. Jones]

On Sep 21, 9:41 am, Chris Jones <lugnut...@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote:

David L. Jones wrote:
I just got a new Nokia mobile phone and it came with a switchmode
mains charger plugpack as many of them do these days, but this one has
an Energy Star label saying this adapter was energy star compliant for
reduced consumption. This is the first time I've seen this on any
plugpack, so I thought I'd test it out.

I got 0.12W on my energy meter with no phone connected. Compare that
with 0.55W for my old Nokia transformer plugpack, and 0.55W for a
(presumably non-energy star compliant) Motorola switchmode plugpack.

That's a big saving, especially when you multiply it by a few tens of
millions of phones. Very nice indeed.

Dave.

This online book is quite interesting - it tries to put things like your
charger into perspective.

http://www.withouthotair.com/

That site (http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/sustainable/charger/) is
almost laughable.
He used a power meter without the required resolution.
I used a better meter and obtained the figures I posted.

But he does have a valid point that phone chargers use a very very
small percentage of people's total power, and I was not implying
anything to the contrary. It's just a NICE thing to have a charge take
0.1W instead of 0.5W, don't you think?

Dave.

 

[Chris Jones]

David L. Jones wrote:

On Sep 21, 9:41 am, Chris Jones <lugnut...@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote:
David L. Jones wrote:
I just got a new Nokia mobile phone and it came with a switchmode
mains charger plugpack as many of them do these days, but this one has
an Energy Star label saying this adapter was energy star compliant for
reduced consumption. This is the first time I've seen this on any
plugpack, so I thought I'd test it out.

I got 0.12W on my energy meter with no phone connected. Compare that
with 0.55W for my old Nokia transformer plugpack, and 0.55W for a
(presumably non-energy star compliant) Motorola switchmode plugpack.

That's a big saving, especially when you multiply it by a few tens of
millions of phones. Very nice indeed.

Dave.

This online book is quite interesting - it tries to put things like your
charger into perspective.

http://www.withouthotair.com/

That site (http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/sustainable/charger/) is
almost laughable.
He used a power meter without the required resolution.
I used a better meter and obtained the figures I posted.

But he does have a valid point that phone chargers use a very very
small percentage of people's total power, and I was not implying
anything to the contrary. It's just a NICE thing to have a charge take
0.1W instead of 0.5W, don't you think?

Dave.

Yes it's nice, in a small way.

Chris

 

[Chris Jones]

Bob Parker wrote:

On 19/09/2007 16:57 Franc Zabkar wrote:

I wonder if the new plugpack is plug and voltage compatible with the
older ones? Does the phone even use the same battery as the older
models, or does it just use the same cells in an incompatible package?

Call me a cynic, but if the phone manufacturers want to be really
green, then they should supply standardised accessories at a price
that would make retaining the phone an economical option. As it is
now, the only reason I still don't use my old Ericsson is that a
replacement battery costs almost as much as a new phone, assuming you
can find one that hasn't expired on the shelf.

BTW, I wonder if the energy used in manufacturing these EnergyStar
plugpacks is actually offset by the power savings during the life of
the unit. I also wonder how power factor affects the VA as opposed to
the wattage, and I wonder whether this has been considered when
awarding EnergyStar ratings.

- Franc Zabkar

One of my mates had to stop using his old Ericsson phone because of
battery unavailability. Now he uses a Nokia 3310 he found dumped during
a council cleanup.
I saw an item on the ABC news not that long ago which said that the
typical life of a mobile phone in Australia is only 18 months before it
gets replaced by the latest model with more gadgets.
It's hard not to be cynical!

Bob

I put new NiMH cells in the battery pack of my phone (shows how old it is
that it used NiMH). Even buying the cells from Farnell, it worked out 3
times cheaper than the list price for the replacement battery pack, that
was no longer manufactured so I couldn't have bought it if I wanted to.
Now the whole company that made the phone (Siemens mobile) is out of
business so I had to replace the cells again about three years after the
first set. The only disadvantage with the re-celled battery pack is that I
guess the security people might get a bit funny about it if I tried to take
it on a plane.

Chris

 

On Sep 20, 2:56 pm, Bob Parker <bobp.deletet...@bluebottle.com> wrote:

On 20/09/2007 13:48 dale-goo...@monsya.net wrote:



No better? It's heaps better! How else can Telstra piggyback value-add
data services on top of their network? It would be a really useful
advantage to be able to replace a perfectly good CDMA system with a
new network that allows more money to be made. It also results in a
fast data network that can reach areas that other providers can't
afford to match. The bonus is that the government subsidize it and
Telstra get an uncompetitive advantage.

It is surprising how many customers will sign with Telstra just
because of the coverage that they can offer.

Oh, you meant it is no better for you... well that may be the case

You should read what me and others have been writing. I'm on the
terribly old-fashioned (Vodafone) GSM network and I don't have
first-hand experience with 3G. I'm referring to basic coverage for voice
services in the bush. Many people have told me that the 3G network has
inferior coverage in the bush to CDMA and silly me has taken them
seriously. Thanks for telling us that there isn't a problem after all.

Sorry, I re-read what I wrote and can understand why it wasn't
interpreted as sarcasm. It was meant to be. My point of view is that
the CDMA system had great coverage and the only reason it is being
replaced is so that Telstra can make money from other services. By
replacing the CDMA system they give themselves the opportunity to sell
other data services, and effectively do this under the guise of
helping people in remote areas.

I had two CDMA phones myself because I preferred the coverage. My own
experiences tell me that there was nothing wrong with the network.

By replacing that network with a new one with the ability to offer
high speed data access, Telstra can gain a market advantage.

It is a very powerful advantage for a Telco to have data access in
almost all parts of the country. I don't know if they provide
equivalent access to competitors for this same network, but I expect
that even if they did it would be at a premium.

Sorta makes me think of the old "Yes, Minister" TV series.

'not as good for simple voice communication'? There's too much
competition there already, so it was sold to the government as being
the only way to deliver broadband internet to remote users. It also
just happens to be a great platform for offering other services.

Maybe it does have great bandwidth for providing all the things you
personally want in your phone. I'm talking about basic voice coverage.

Yeah I know. I am one of those people that want just basic voice
coverage. Unfortunately we aren't the best source of income for Telcos
as there is a lot of competition. Data services are the next
opportunity to bring in higher income than what voice calls can
generate.

Dale.

 

[Bob Parker]

On 24/09/2007 16:35 dale-google@monsya.net wrote:

On Sep 20, 2:56 pm, Bob Parker <bobp.deletet...@bluebottle.com> wrote:
On 20/09/2007 13:48 dale-goo...@monsya.net wrote:



No better? It's heaps better! How else can Telstra piggyback value-add
data services on top of their network? It would be a really useful
advantage to be able to replace a perfectly good CDMA system with a
new network that allows more money to be made. It also results in a
fast data network that can reach areas that other providers can't
afford to match. The bonus is that the government subsidize it and
Telstra get an uncompetitive advantage.
It is surprising how many customers will sign with Telstra just
because of the coverage that they can offer.
Oh, you meant it is no better for you... well that may be the case
You should read what me and others have been writing. I'm on the
terribly old-fashioned (Vodafone) GSM network and I don't have
first-hand experience with 3G. I'm referring to basic coverage for voice
services in the bush. Many people have told me that the 3G network has
inferior coverage in the bush to CDMA and silly me has taken them
seriously. Thanks for telling us that there isn't a problem after all.

Sorry, I re-read what I wrote and can understand why it wasn't
interpreted as sarcasm. It was meant to be. My point of view is that
the CDMA system had great coverage and the only reason it is being
replaced is so that Telstra can make money from other services. By
replacing the CDMA system they give themselves the opportunity to sell
other data services, and effectively do this under the guise of
helping people in remote areas.

I had two CDMA phones myself because I preferred the coverage. My own
experiences tell me that there was nothing wrong with the network.

By replacing that network with a new one with the ability to offer
high speed data access, Telstra can gain a market advantage.

It is a very powerful advantage for a Telco to have data access in
almost all parts of the country. I don't know if they provide
equivalent access to competitors for this same network, but I expect
that even if they did it would be at a premium.

Sorta makes me think of the old "Yes, Minister" TV series.
'not as good for simple voice communication'? There's too much
competition there already, so it was sold to the government as being
the only way to deliver broadband internet to remote users. It also
just happens to be a great platform for offering other services.
Maybe it does have great bandwidth for providing all the things you
personally want in your phone. I'm talking about basic voice coverage.

Yeah I know. I am one of those people that want just basic voice
coverage. Unfortunately we aren't the best source of income for Telcos
as there is a lot of competition. Data services are the next
opportunity to bring in higher income than what voice calls can
generate.

Dale.

No worries! It's a relief that you understand my point of view
because we're in agreement.

Bob

 

[denis]

Hi,

I'm looking for a replacement remote for a Centrex 51cm tv. I've tried
several universal remotes with no success. Can anyone recommend one or
where I can buy a "genuine" one?

Thanks.

 

[Rudolf]

Hi, Dennis.

What is the model of TV?

Centrex has closed down, but I can ask around, someone may have one.

Rudolf

"denis" <denis@spam_this.com> wrote in message
news:470b77df$0$10708$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...

Hi,

I'm looking for a replacement remote for a Centrex 51cm tv. I've tried
several universal remotes with no success. Can anyone recommend one or
where I can buy a "genuine" one?

Thanks.

 

[Oldus Fartus]

denis wrote:

Hi,

I'm looking for a replacement remote for a Centrex 51cm tv. I've tried
several universal remotes with no success. Can anyone recommend one or
where I can buy a "genuine" one?

Thanks.

Have you tried a different brand remote? I have a Centrex 34cm TV with
broken remote, and found my Tedelux 80cm remote worked fine with it.
Since then I also discovered an X-logic remote also worked. (Not sure
which model X-logic it was.)

--
Cheers
Oldus Fartus

 

[mark krawczuk]

hi, my friend has a centrex 80 cm tv.
i got a universal type romote from ebay , all i can remember the remote was
on a key chain , about 1 inch wide , 5 mm thick and 1 1/2 long , and it
works fine.
mark k




"denis" <denis@spam_this.com> wrote in message
news:470b77df$0$10708$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...

Hi,

I'm looking for a replacement remote for a Centrex 51cm tv. I've tried
several universal remotes with no success. Can anyone recommend one or
where I can buy a "genuine" one?

Thanks.

 

[Bob Parker]

On 12/10/2007 00:44 Karl Collett wrote:

The dollar doesn't go as far as it did last year. What will next year
bring? Now you have a chance to help yourself stretch your budget. Karl's
Koupons brings you the best deals on the internet. Whatever your needs are,
you're sure to find them here. Thousands of products are available and
many at deep discounts. Click here and start saving today!



Don't waste your gas dollars and precious time bouncing from store to store
looking for the best deal. You are just a click away from avoiding the
crowds, standing in line, and "price checks on register eight" during your
holiday shopping.

Typical bright spammer - no URL.

Plonk