Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Hi All,
My 3.5 year old Toshiba 32" widescreen has died, due to a faulty picture
tube. The problem is that now and again the green gun overloads, filling the
screen with a green zig-zag pattern, then the TV shuts down. The repair shop
say this is due to a bad design in the picture tube, causing overheating.
This is a well known problem in this tube (Philips) apparently, and this
tube is no longer used in new products.
Now, my question is, can I get Toshiba to provide me with a replacement
picture tube without me having to pay for it? IMHO, the set was very very
expensive when I bought it, and a three and a half year life span is simply
unacceptable for something like this. Is there any recourse under UK law to
do this? I was thinking about going along the usual "fit for purpose" and
"merchantable quality" lines. Does anyone know of any successes/failures of
people trying to do this?
I've googled around, but couldn't see anything. I swear I read/heard
something about forcing electronics manufacturers to repair out with
warranty, but I can't remember or find the source.
Thanks in advance,
Fraser.
Entirely correct. And adding a new winding onto the LOPTF is veryCould be a fault in the drive circuits, not the tube.
If it is the tube and Toshiba will not replace it, the tech should be able
to isolate the filiment from ground by using a seperate winding on the
flyback core. Worth a shot before buying a new tv.
Bill
Christian Technology
In article <XflGb.10061$FN.3262@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net>,
Fraser <no46764@spam.com> wrote:
Hi All,
My 3.5 year old Toshiba 32" widescreen has died, due to a faulty picture
tube. The problem is that now and again the green gun overloads, filling the
screen with a green zig-zag pattern, then the TV shuts down. The repair shop
say this is due to a bad design in the picture tube, causing overheating.
This is a well known problem in this tube (Philips) apparently, and this
tube is no longer used in new products.
Now, my question is, can I get Toshiba to provide me with a replacement
picture tube without me having to pay for it? IMHO, the set was very very
expensive when I bought it, and a three and a half year life span is simply
unacceptable for something like this. Is there any recourse under UK law to
do this? I was thinking about going along the usual "fit for purpose" and
"merchantable quality" lines. Does anyone know of any successes/failures of
people trying to do this?
I've googled around, but couldn't see anything. I swear I read/heard
something about forcing electronics manufacturers to repair out with
warranty, but I can't remember or find the source.
You have rights under the consumer purchase (or whatever it's called) law
and should be able to get a replacement of it meneded free of charge. A
judge would also find a 3.5 year lifespan unaccepatable.
Go back to shop and ask them to replace or repair it free of charge. Be
polite etc.
If they say no tell them you are prepared to do it the 'hard way'.
Go back home and write a recorded letter saying what you want doing. Keep
it short and polite.
Then make a claim under small claims. Info on web sites.
All a bit time consuming but you can claim for time taken off work and
travel expenses, and you may find the claim process galvanises the shop
into action before going to court.
Good luck,
Neil
On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 19:51:03 -0000, "half_pint"
esboella.nospam@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Fraser" <no46764@spam.com> wrote in message
news:XflGb.10061$FN.3262@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net...
Hi All,
My 3.5 year old Toshiba 32" widescreen has died, due to a faulty
picture
tube. The problem is that now and again the green gun overloads,
filling
the
screen with a green zig-zag pattern, then the TV shuts down. The repair
shop
say this is due to a bad design in the picture tube, causing
overheating.
This is a well known problem in this tube (Philips) apparently, and
this
tube is no longer used in new products.
Now, my question is, can I get Toshiba to provide me with a replacement
picture tube without me having to pay for it? IMHO, the set was very
very
expensive when I bought it, and a three and a half year life span is
simply
unacceptable for something like this. Is there any recourse under UK
law
to
do this? I was thinking about going along the usual "fit for purpose"
and
"merchantable quality" lines. Does anyone know of any
successes/failures
of
people trying to do this?
I've googled around, but couldn't see anything. I swear I read/heard
something about forcing electronics manufacturers to repair out with
warranty, but I can't remember or find the source.
Thanks in advance,
Well all I can say is if you enjoy viewing anything in widescreen format
you
deserve all you get, its a bloody stupid format, which seems set
to ruin my TV enjoyment for ever.
That is so nice to hear.
If your TV won't work have a look
out of you letter box, you will get a similar effect to WS.
I believe I mentioned here earlier that WS tubes would be more
prone to failure for various reason which I won't explore here.
Good, because with your incredibly limited knowledge of electronics we
know you will get it totally wrong.
--Why not but a portable and a mignifying lens which stretches the
picture horizontally? It will be a lot cheaper and more reliable.
I doubt you will have much luck complaining, because you bought
a WS in the first place you are already marked out as a mug with
more money than sense, so they will not be forthcoming.
Harsh word I know, but true.
But anyway have a Merry Xmas.
--
Bob.
The difference between ordinary stupid and extraordinary stupid can be
summed up in one word -- YOU.
That is so nice to hear.
If your TV won't work have a look
out of you letter box, you will get a similar effect to WS.
I believe I mentioned here earlier that WS tubes would be more
prone to failure for various reason which I won't explore here.
Good, because with your incredibly limited knowledge of electronics we
know you will get it totally wrong.
Garbage.
His post proves I am correct.
to draw any conclusions from a study size of one is a total rubbish
I include the thousands who didn't post.On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 15:33:39 -0000, "half_pint"
esboella.nospam@yahoo.com> wrote:
That is so nice to hear.
If your TV won't work have a look
out of you letter box, you will get a similar effect to WS.
I believe I mentioned here earlier that WS tubes would be more
prone to failure for various reason which I won't explore here.
Good, because with your incredibly limited knowledge of electronics
we know you will get it totally wrong.
Garbage.
His post proves I am correct.
to draw any conclusions from a study size of one is a total rubbish
I dont watch DVD period.please go away and learn something useful before posting something you
allege is fact again.
btw, your post on WS is rubbish as well. I predominantly use my WS tv
to watch dvds as content from tv is generally crap, as you should know
16:9 is more representative than 4:3 for most transfers to dvd.
For shame, did they ask you to post on their behalf, guessing andDavid Hemmings wrote:
On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 15:33:39 -0000, "half_pint"
esboella.nospam@yahoo.com> wrote:
That is so nice to hear.
If your TV won't work have a look
out of you letter box, you will get a similar effect to WS.
I believe I mentioned here earlier that WS tubes would be more
prone to failure for various reason which I won't explore here.
Good, because with your incredibly limited knowledge of electronics
we know you will get it totally wrong.
Garbage.
His post proves I am correct.
to draw any conclusions from a study size of one is a total rubbish
I include the thousands who didn't post.
fucktard, i hardly think watching a film in the current best sound andplease go away and learn something useful before posting something you
allege is fact again.
btw, your post on WS is rubbish as well. I predominantly use my WS tv
to watch dvds as content from tv is generally crap, as you should know
16:9 is more representative than 4:3 for most transfers to dvd.
I dont watch DVD period.
Why should I suffer for you to indulge your fetish?
Never know it in this life. Please hurry forward to the next lifeGarbage.
His post proves I am correct.
LOL the irony!!!!On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 15:33:39 -0000, "half_pint"
esboella.nospam@yahoo.com> wrote:
Garbage.
His post proves I am correct.
Never know it in this life. Please hurry forward to the next life
where you may have a brains and stand a chance of being right for
once.
--
Bob.
The difference between ordinary stupid and extraordinary stupid can be
summed up in one word -- YOU.
They were *intended* to be watched in a high capacity *cinema*,On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 16:18:05 -0000, "half_pint"
esboella.nospam@yahoo.com> wrote:
David Hemmings wrote:
On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 15:33:39 -0000, "half_pint"
esboella.nospam@yahoo.com> wrote:
That is so nice to hear.
If your TV won't work have a look
out of you letter box, you will get a similar effect to WS.
I believe I mentioned here earlier that WS tubes would be more
prone to failure for various reason which I won't explore here.
Good, because with your incredibly limited knowledge of electronics
we know you will get it totally wrong.
Garbage.
His post proves I am correct.
to draw any conclusions from a study size of one is a total rubbish
I include the thousands who didn't post.
For shame, did they ask you to post on their behalf, guessing and
misrepresentation don't count either.
please go away and learn something useful before posting something you
allege is fact again.
btw, your post on WS is rubbish as well. I predominantly use my WS tv
to watch dvds as content from tv is generally crap, as you should know
16:9 is more representative than 4:3 for most transfers to dvd.
I dont watch DVD period.
Why should I suffer for you to indulge your fetish?
fucktard, i hardly think watching a film in the current best sound and
audio format a fetish. A 22:9 crt is definitely out of the question,
the 16:9 is the best compromise between those wanting to watch films
as they were intended
There is plenty of merit, if you find no merit in real life, ie news(seeing as there is scare little tv programmes
of any merit anymore)
Thalidomide was a new drug for pregnant women once.and those desparately clinging to to past, i'm
surprised you don't argue that the colour guns make tvs less reliable.
You can get more plants on a widescreen so no.What do you use you tv for, putting plants on ?
Niche - 4:3 tvs, VCR, good tv.......
Rubbish - the shape of the cinema screen has nothing to do with theI dont watch DVD period.
Why should I suffer for you to indulge your fetish?
fucktard, i hardly think watching a film in the current best sound and
audio format a fetish. A 22:9 crt is definitely out of the question,
the 16:9 is the best compromise between those wanting to watch films
as they were intended
They were *intended* to be watched in a high capacity *cinema*,
hence the wide format, so everyone could sit near the screen.
And is now a highly successful drug in combatting a number of medical(seeing as there is scare little tv programmes
of any merit anymore)
There is plenty of merit, if you find no merit in real life, ie news
sport, music, politics and comedy then maybe not.
and those desparately clinging to to past, i'm
surprised you don't argue that the colour guns make tvs less reliable.
Thalidomide was a new drug for pregnant women once.
What do you use you tv for, putting plants on ?
You can get more plants on a widescreen so no.
Niche - 4:3 tvs, VCR, good tv.......
Widescreen TV - giving you a more natural view on the world.
I agree. Let's ignore half_pint from now on....his views are clearly theThey were *intended* to be watched in a high capacity *cinema*,
hence the wide format, so everyone could sit near the screen.
Rubbish - the shape of the cinema screen has nothing to do with the
seating.
<splutter> but still at a pathetic resolution. Not seen highWidescreen TV - giving you a more natural view on the world.
pseudo increased definition that works quite well.On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 10:37:25 +0000, Bob Brenchley. wrote:
Widescreen TV - giving you a more natural view on the world.
splutter> but still at a pathetic resolution. Not seen high
definition have you? Now that is an "open window".
Best we can muster at the moment, although some of the new tvs give
How very true. they almost got it right quality vs. quantity, 50:50Of course with the "never mind the quality, count the channels"
philosophy of UK broadcasters we are highly unlikely to see Hi-Def in
the UK for at least the next 10 years or more.
I seem to remember reading that widescreen cinema came in to combat TV inThey were *intended* to be watched in a high capacity *cinema*,
hence the wide format, so everyone could sit near the screen.
Rubbish - the shape of the cinema screen has nothing to do with the
seating.
Yes, I have seen HDTV. Resolution though, has little to do with aspectOn Sat, 27 Dec 2003 10:37:25 +0000, Bob Brenchley. wrote:
Widescreen TV - giving you a more natural view on the world.
splutter> but still at a pathetic resolution. Not seen high
definition have you? Now that is an "open window".
There is a growth of HDTV production in the States, but it has a longOf course with the "never mind the quality, count the channels"
philosophy of UK broadcasters we are highly unlikely to see Hi-Def in
the UK for at least the next 10 years or more.
That's been true for 20 years ...There is a growth of HDTV production in the States, but it has a long
way to go.
And your views are those of a mindless simpleton who will happily buyOn Sat, 27 Dec 2003 10:37:25 UTC, Bob Brenchley.
Bob@format.publications.ukf.net> wrote:
They were *intended* to be watched in a high capacity *cinema*,
hence the wide format, so everyone could sit near the screen.
Rubbish - the shape of the cinema screen has nothing to do with the
seating.
I agree. Let's ignore half_pint from now on....his views are clearly the
result of inverted snobbery, ignorance, envy...or all three.
Bob Eager
rde at tavi.co.uk
PC Server 325*4; PS/2s 9585, 8595, 9595*2, 8580*3,
P70...
On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 01:29:24 -0000, "half_pint"
esboella.nospam@yahoo.com> wrote:
I dont watch DVD period.
Why should I suffer for you to indulge your fetish?
fucktard, i hardly think watching a film in the current best sound and
audio format a fetish. A 22:9 crt is definitely out of the question,
the 16:9 is the best compromise between those wanting to watch films
as they were intended
They were *intended* to be watched in a high capacity *cinema*,
hence the wide format, so everyone could sit near the screen.
Rubbish - the shape of the cinema screen has nothing to do with the
seating.
In addition, as most films now make far more from the video/DVD
release then from the box office, and given the extra content the film
makers have to plan for the DVD, their thoughts are always with the
home viewer.
(seeing as there is scare little tv programmes
of any merit anymore)
There is plenty of merit, if you find no merit in real life, ie news
sport, music, politics and comedy then maybe not.
and those desparately clinging to to past, i'm
surprised you don't argue that the colour guns make tvs less reliable.
Thalidomide was a new drug for pregnant women once.
And is now a highly successful drug in combatting a number of medical
problems.
What do you use you tv for, putting plants on ?
You can get more plants on a widescreen so no.
Niche - 4:3 tvs, VCR, good tv.......
Widescreen TV - giving you a more natural view on the world.
--
Bob.
If brains were taxed, you would get a rebate.
But has a lot to do with "a more natural view". B-)Widescreen TV - giving you a more natural view on the world.
splutter> but still at a pathetic resolution. Not seen high
definition have you? Now that is an "open window".
Yes, I have seen HDTV. Resolution though, has little to do with
aspect ratio.