Toshiba TV29C90 problem; Image fades to black...

[NSM]

<jackbruce9999@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1118461679.394136.299150@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Again, is the term "DC Sine Wave" problematic because it is
fundametnally wrong

Yes. DC by definition is zero frequency.

N

 

[Ban]

jackbruce9999@yahoo.com wrote:

Right...but your reply actually doesn't address the NET effect......if
the wave had a DC-component of +2 V and an AC-component of 10Vpp, then
the wave would be NET AC (since its polarity changes
pos/neg/pos/etc.)......however if the DC-component was +10V instead,
then the wave would be NET DC (since its polarity never changes
polarity - i.e. always positive).....that is why I argue a "fully DC
sine wave" is a BETTER (albeit unconventional) and more concise way to
describe what I'm talking about (without using actual values) than the
conventional description you provided....your description is
ambiguos...could be NET "AC" (biphasic) or "DC" (monophasic)

The term "DC wave" is plain wrong, ask your teacher if you do not believe
us. If you want to define new meanings for widely accepted definitions, it
is ok, but do not try to communicate with anybody, because they will
misunderstand you. Look at the definition of electric current flow. The
convention is to say current flows from positive to negative, even if we
know that the electrons move the opposite way. But because of the convention
we keep up with the old definition to allow a communication with others.
So you can make up a lot of logic constructs why you said this, it doesn't
make it right. Your teacher will mark you a mistake and you will have to
accept that. NO way out!

--
ciao Ban
Bordighera, Italy

 

[William R. Walsh]

Hi!

You might have all you need and not even know it. If you can do so, try
taking apart your existing remote. You may find unused contact pads with no
(or reduced) button "lumps" above them. Pressing one might give you the
service function you are looking for.

I don't know what the likelihood of this being true is like, but I'd be
surprised if Pioneer made a totally different PCB and controller layout for
a "service remote".

Just be careful if you do find that your remote can do this--going into
service modes can really screw things up and cause what may be fatal damage
to the unit.

William

 

[Bob Penoyer]

On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 04:12:52 GMT, "NSM" <nowrite@to.me> wrote:

jackbruce9999@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1118461679.394136.299150@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Again, is the term "DC Sine Wave" problematic because it is
fundametnally wrong

Yes. DC by definition is zero frequency.

Um, no. DC is Direct Current, i.e., current that flows in one
direction. For example, the output from a rectifier is DC but it
certainly isn't "zero frequency."

 

[me]

jackbruce9999@yahoo.com wrote in news:1118461679.394136.299150
@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Again, is the term "DC Sine Wave" problematic because it is
fundametnally wrong OR is it problematic because it is at odds with
conventional terminology and nomenclature.....if it is fundamentally
wrong, then please show how.....

Look jackass, AC means it is alternating in time. If it is DC it is
constant. A sine wave alternates in time, thus is AC. Now shut up.

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

 

[Don Bowey]

On 6/10/05 8:28 PM, in article
1118460489.160750.183570@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com,
"jackbruce9999@yahoo.com" <jackbruce9999@yahoo.com> wrote:

P.S.
I would challenge you to prove that the term "DC sine wave" is
objectionable because it is fundamentally wrong as opposed to being at
odds with conventional terminology and nomenclature.....Isn't a sine
wave that operates as all positive voltages always yielding currents
that operate in only one direction (i.e. "direct current")? Surely you
wouldn't call this AC, would you?

Yes, your term "DC sine wave" is objectionable because it is fundamentally
wrong.

I'm sure that one of your assumptions is that AC voltages flow through a
capacitor. They do not. Now you go hit the books and discover how a
varying voltage gets from one side of a capacitor to the other. Then you
will be close to seeing your error.


Don

 

[Don Bowey]

On 6/10/05 9:10 PM, in article
1118463004.658308.176380@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com,
"jackbruce9999@yahoo.com" <jackbruce9999@yahoo.com> wrote:

If the low peak of the sine wave (and the rest of the the sine wave for
that matter) is "fully" above the "zero" reference point, then isn't it
true that the current DOES NOT alternate? That is to say, that current
only flows in one direction....i.e. "direct current"? Isn't it also
true that if the low peak of the sine wave is -0.00001V then the sine
wave results in current flowing in both direction (albeit for a
nanosecond)....i.e. "alternating current".....I'm not arguing that my
use of nomenclature is "pure" or conventional....but I don't see how it
is fundamentally wrong, without merit, or lacking a reasonable
basis.....

Here's one last tip to help you with the homework assignment I gave you
earlier: You are wrong in assuming the current flows in only one direction.

Don

 

[Michael Kennedy]

Thats Cool!
"William R. Walsh" <newsgroups1@saveyourspam.walshcomptech.com> wrote in
message news:UNuqe.35928$x96.3790@attbi_s72...

Hello all...

In my latest round of shopping at Curbside Discount I happened across a
very
interesting Zenith VCR. It's a Model VR-1380 and the way it takes a tape
is
rather unique. The tape is loaded "sideways". So far it looks to work
apart
from some moderately tired rubber.

http://greyghost.dyndns.org/zenithvcr/ has pictures, 640x480, 47~49Kb

Anyone ever seen another VCR that does this?

William

 

[Pooh Bear]

jackbruce9999@yahoo.com wrote:

2 questions about a fully DC Sine Wave....let's suppose you have a DC
Sine wave which varies from +5V to +15V peak-to-peak going into a load
with R, L, and C components.....

Question #1:
Is the load's impedance a function of R, L, and C (and wave frequency)
or is it simply just R (i.e. Z=R)? In other words does non-resistive
impedance (L + C) really only matter with an AC signal OR anytime
voltage varies periodically (even if it is all DC)?

What you describe is a 10V pk-pk sinewave sitting 'on top' of 10V DC.

The load current will depend on the RLC configuration. E.g. if there is series C then there
will be no DC load current. Only the AC component will be affected by reactance either way.

Question #2:
Would a "regular" negative peak detector ciruit, like shown here:

http://www.elektroda.net/cir/index/Detector%20Circuits/NEGATIVE%20PEAK%20DETECTOR.htmgative

work for the DC Wave described? Will it output +5V or do negative peak
detectors only work for AC signals?

404 error.

Graham

 

[Pooh Bear]

jackbruce9999@yahoo.com wrote:

Again, is the term "DC Sine Wave" problematic because it is
fundametnally wrong

Yes !

Graham

 

[Mac]

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 21:33:11 -0700, Bob Penoyer wrote:

On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 04:12:52 GMT, "NSM" <nowrite@to.me> wrote:


jackbruce9999@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1118461679.394136.299150@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Again, is the term "DC Sine Wave" problematic because it is
fundametnally wrong

Yes. DC by definition is zero frequency.

Um, no. DC is Direct Current, i.e., current that flows in one
direction. For example, the output from a rectifier is DC but it
certainly isn't "zero frequency."

No, it is NOT DC. Sometimes when speaking casually people call it DC, but
more often it will be called rectified AC.

I agree with you that DC stands for Direct Current. But what is the
logical meaning of that? Who knows. The bottom line is that when a
waveform varies with time, it is NOT DC in popular useage.

I'm setting followups to sci.electronics.design.

--Mac

 

[John Popelish]

jackbruce9999@yahoo.com wrote:

I will absolutely buy what you said, but understand the import of what
you're saying....you're saying that the language of "AC" and "DC" has
essentially been somewhat bastardized from its original meanings to
also mean zero-frequency and non-zero-frequency signals.

Now you are cooking with gas. Old words take on new meanings as our
needs change. Those words were coined when our understanding and use
of electricity was pretty primitive.

Therefore, to
describe a 10Vpp signal with a 10VDC offset as an "AC" signal is
actually contrary to the original connation of "alternating current"
since it (net) results in a signal which yields only a mono-directional
(i.e. direct) current flow (albeit time variant).

What you say about current applies only to a resistor connected across
that voltage. Connect a capacitor across it and the DC part is
ignored and AC (alternating current) passes through the capacitor as
if the wave were perfectly centered on zero volts.

So in a sense, you
could say I am holding "pure" to the original (circa 1890's) definition
of AC/DC while its use has been "officially" corrupted

I prefer "expanded", "enhanced", "extended" or "refined".

to cover the
concepts of "zero frequency" and "non-zero-freuency".

Agree?

Sure. The important thing is that the speaker and listener are using
similar definitions of the words in use, or there is bound to be a
misunderstanding.

 

[Mac]

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 21:10:04 -0700, jackbruce9999 wrote:

If the low peak of the sine wave (and the rest of the the sine wave for
that matter) is "fully" above the "zero" reference point, then isn't it
true that the current DOES NOT alternate? That is to say, that current
only flows in one direction....i.e. "direct current"? Isn't it also
true that if the low peak of the sine wave is -0.00001V then the sine
wave results in current flowing in both direction (albeit for a
nanosecond)....i.e. "alternating current".....I'm not arguing that my
use of nomenclature is "pure" or conventional....but I don't see how it
is fundamentally wrong, without merit, or lacking a reasonable
basis.....

To an electrical engineer, at least, DC means time invariant. I suppose DC
and AC have become misnomers. For example, a sinusoidal Voltage waveform
across an open circuit would be called AC even though no current flows.

And the voltage across a battery's terminals would be called DC even if
there is no load, and hence no current.

If you talk to EE's, you will have to get used to them using the terms
this way.

I am not sure where to set followups to, so I guess I'll just post to all
four groups, and leave followups unset.

--Mac

 

[Mac]

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 22:24:24 -0700, jackbruce9999 wrote:

I concede my terminology is anti-convention, and "wrong" (with respect
to convention) BUT I disagree with you here:

but do not try to communicate with anybody, because they will misunderstand you

If you were given a sheet of paper a week ago, with only the phrase "a
fully DC sine wave" on it, and you were asked to come up with as many
realistic possible meanings, I have to believe that you could have only
come up with one (and rather quickly)

If true, then your statement:

But because of the convention we keep up with the old definition to allow a communication with others.

would hold true about "a fully DC sine wave" with respect to
convention/"old definition" but not with respect to "communication" or
ambiguity....while not "pure" or conventionally correct, is there
really any other possible interpretation of "a fully DC sine wave" and
therefore wouldn't you agree that being a "hyper-stickler" on this
point is really not justifiable?

Again, isn't there more ambiguity (poorer communication) in your
description:

The signal would be said to have a DC-component (of the average value) and an AC-component
(of the rms value minus the DC)

versus:

a "fully DC sine wave" versus "a partially DC-offset AC sine wave"

Ban and others are trying to educate you. You are resisting fiercely.

As I said elsewhere, DC and AC have become (or perhaps always
were) misnomers. In electrical engineering circles, the terms can be
applied to ANY signal, even if there is no current at all.

DC can be thought of as the average value of a waveform, or the zero
frequency component, or the offset, in case of a sinewave.

Your term "DC sine wave" makes you sound ignorant of engineering
terminology. If that is not a good enough reason for you to drop it, then
maybe you should avoid future posts to sci.electronics.design, where many
or most of the posters are electrical engineers.

--Mac

 

[w_tom]

The term DC sine wave is much like Magellan still claiming
the world is flat after he circumnavigated the earth.

Your wave could be a sine wave with a DC offset voltage. Or
what you are calling DC might be either a step function or an
impulse. DC would make the capacitors and inductors
irrelevant in your original question. Your question is about
L, R, and C. Therefore DC is not part of the discussion.

Now, what kind of waves (sine, exponential, step, impulse,
etc) - waves singlely or combined - do you want to ask your
LRC questions about? There is no possible answer if asking
about a DC sine wave. Move on to ask about waves that really
do exist.

jackbruce9999@yahoo.com wrote:

If the low peak of the sine wave (and the rest of the the sine wave for
that matter) is "fully" above the "zero" reference point, then isn't it
true that the current DOES NOT alternate? That is to say, that current
only flows in one direction....i.e. "direct current"? Isn't it also
true that if the low peak of the sine wave is -0.00001V then the sine
wave results in current flowing in both direction (albeit for a
nanosecond)....i.e. "alternating current".....I'm not arguing that my
use of nomenclature is "pure" or conventional....but I don't see how it
is fundamentally wrong, without merit, or lacking a reasonable
basis.....

 

[Ban]

jackbruce9999@yahoo.com wrote:

Go back to the original few posts to see how it got started....despite
being explicit about the specs of the wave, someone childishly
objected to my casual usage of "DC sine wave".....would it have been
objectionable had I used "a fully DC-offset sine wave"?......again,
I've never claimed that I was using "official" or
conventionally-correct teminology or nomenclature....I just really
object that anyone would object to what I was saying, when its meaning
was explicitly stated (using actual numbers) and the phrase "fully DC
sine wave", although conventionly queer, is not at all cryptic or hard
to figure out.....

It is like somebody says to you you are an intelligent idiot. Of course you
know what he means, don't you. But there is a contradiction in those words.
You expose yourself being a layman, being not educated, having slept at
physics. At the best you might have other talents, but apparently not in
engineering. Do you want to appear like that, well than just erase that
"intelligent" in front of ...
Intelligence is not making no mistake, but avoiding to make the same mistake
twice.

--
ciao Ban
Bordighera, Italy

 

[Don Bowey]

On 6/10/05 10:43 PM, in article
1118468615.019389.11380@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com,
"jackbruce9999@yahoo.com" <jackbruce9999@yahoo.com> wrote:

Let me try this:

would you object to

"a sine wave which (net) results in a current that only flows in one
direction"

Yes, I object.

Don

 

[Don Bowey]

On 6/10/05 10:53 PM, in article
1118469215.335373.322910@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com,
"jackbruce9999@yahoo.com" <jackbruce9999@yahoo.com> wrote:

Agree?

No.

 

[Ray L. Volts]

"NickName" <johnlu8848@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1118467573.857870.303470@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

This is an old Nikon 3.3 Mega Pixels camera, the model is Cool PIX 990.
It has be a good camera for a number of years.

Recently, someone decided to put a 12 VDC (instead of 6 VDC) for the
power input and the camera stop working.

someone = absent-minded u?
If not, consider it a hard lesson to never ever let anyone else touch your
gear.

The question is what is the likely damage has occurred to the camera?

Could be many different things... blown caps and/or resistors, blown IC
protectors, blown IC's, etc etc..
Unless you're very very lucky and the only damage is perfectly obvious and
simple to both get at and to correct, this won't be cheap to have repaired
by a pro.

 

[Leonard Caillouet]

Art,

I found the tip that you posted below, many times actually. The last time I
replaced a thermistor in one of the sets with that tip I found the new one
to be identical to the old one. That is why I asked. It sounded like you
actually had some info on a new type thermistor but it appears you are just
speculating.

The last time I talked to Panasonic on the matter they knew nothing of any
changes in the part. There has been a change in the part number, but as I
said, it was identical in appearance. I tried to verify if I was getting
the correct part and no one could confirm that there was a difference. The
best info that I got from Panasonic on the issue was to make sure that the
replacement fuses were time delay types.

I was hoping that you had some actual documentation on the parts. Your
original post made it sound like there was something on the site. In fact,
you were just making an assumption on the matter. Do you have some real
info from Thomson or Philips or are you just blowing smoke on that, too?
Some of us like to deal in real information, rather than speculation.

Leonard

"Art" <plotsligt@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:NoednQKJqbcX2TffRVn-2g@comcast.com...

"Unit is dead. Fuse F601 blows (black). Excessive AC current flow through
the degaussing coil. A change in the characteristics of D808 can cause
excessive current to flow through the degaussing coil and blow F601.
Replace
D808."

Leonard: This is a copy/paste from Panasonic's Web Site. If you check the
new part supplied, maybe even with the same part number, you may find a
difference in type and parameters. Please post your in-depth discoveries
regarding this. Thanks!

"Leonard Caillouet" <no@no.com> wrote in message
news:f%eqe.12799$Hj.6708@lakeread02...
Where do you find it on the Panasonic web site?

The have a notation to replace the thermistor, but I can't find anything
about a different part.

Leonard

"Art" <plotsligt@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:a4Sdna_M-MnJbDXfRVn-pA@comcast.com...
Actually there is a different degauss thermistor that is to be used
when
you
encounter the 'fuse failure syndrome in these sets. Also in Thomson and
Phillips sets, it seems the original degauss thermistor allows too
much
current draw during the degauss cycle, over time the fuse just gives
up.
All
three manufacturers have notations regarding this problem on their
respective web sites, the cures, and part numbers required.
"Rono" <rono@nl.rogers.com> wrote in message
news:gL-dnSg0pKoKBjrfRVn-gg@rogers.com...
I beleive there is a fuse problem with these units, where the
degaussing
draws too much curent, just at initial startup. Try a "slightly"
higher
fuse,
& I think you may have to replace the thermistor, & check back for
more
posts attached to yours, to be sure. Rono.