Toshiba TV29C90 problem; Image fades to black...

[Floyd L. Davidson]

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

I said nothing about Emily Post. ...
....
Oh, my! She says one thing, ...
....
More unsubstantiated twaddle.
....
Just because you can't ...
....
---
It most certainly _is_, since it's what determines the difference
between fluctuating direct current and true alternating current.
---
....
Well, since you consider matters of significance ...
....
I see. You've come to the end of your rope ...

One statement (quoted in full above) that (even though wrong) at
least has something to do with the topic, Six out of seven
comments are piddly attempts a childish and gratuitous insults.

No discussion John. I don't waste time teaching basics to grown
men who have temper tantrums in public.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@barrow.com

 

[John Fields]

On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 15:55:33 -0800, floyd@barrow.com (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

No discussion John. I don't waste time teaching basics to grown
men who have temper tantrums in public.

You're confusing a temper tantrum with getting a dressing down you
thoroughly deserve. You're a poser pretending to knowledge and skills
you don't have, for the purpose of elevating yourself to a station
which you yearn to occupy, but can't.

If you wish to end the discussion or exit the thread, then just do it.
There's really no need for parting shots unless you find it necessary
to have the last word before you run away.

--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[Kitchen Man]

On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 11:49:58 GMT, "daestrom"
<daestrom@NO_SPAM_HEREtwcny.rr.com> wrote:

"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@barrow.com> wrote in message
news:87r7f7vvlr.fld@barrow.com...
"operator jay" <none@none.none> wrote:

It is not changing polarity. I would hesitate to call it alternating
current. On the "dc sine wave" issue, I wouldn't even get into that
debate.
To me the terms involved are open to too many interpretations. As
evidenced
in this thread, I suppose.

Where *do* you get this requirement for changing polarity? We
don't call it "Alternating Polarity", we call it "Alternating
Current". If the current is being altered, it's AC. You keep
talking about AP, and it isn't the same.


'Alternating' is not the same as 'altering'. "Alternating current" is an
electrical current where the magnitude and *direction* [emphasis added]
varies cyclically.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternating_current

One may 'alter' the magnitude of a DC current without it becoming
'alternating current'

The problem with that definition is that it is unnecessarily limiting.
You can find other sources where the definition reads "magnitude *or*
direction," the latter which I believe to be more correct. If the
signal is steady state, then the current that changes magnitude but
never direction is simply an AC signal with a DC component greater in
positive amplitude than the negative peak of the AC component.

--
Al Brennan

"If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9,
then you would have a key to the universe." Nicola Tesla

 

[none]

On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 07:39:03 -0500, "Wayne Tiffany"
<wayne.tiffanyRMVJUNK@asi.com> wrote:

Looks like the same one that we have at our church. Still seems to work
fine after all these years.

WT

"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.

It was actually made by JVC, zenith slapped their logo on many a JVC

product back in the 80's.
I saw the JVC equivalant at my local Goddwill a month or so ago and it
ran fine as well, was a S-VHS as well.

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

Anyone ever seen another VCR that does this?

William

 

[John Fields]

On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 17:01:09 -0800, floyd@barrow.com (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 15:55:33 -0800, floyd@barrow.com (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

No discussion John. I don't waste time teaching basics to grown
men who have temper tantrums in public.

You're confusing a temper tantrum with getting a dressing down you
thoroughly deserve. You're a poser pretending to knowledge and skills
you don't have, for the purpose of elevating yourself to a station
which you yearn to occupy, but can't.

If you wish to end the discussion or exit the thread, then just do it.
There's really no need for parting shots unless you find it necessary
to have the last word before you run away.

--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer
^^^^^^^^^^^^

Posting public articles like the above may well cost you employment
in the future.

---
I see. Since you can't impugn my technical credentials and you can't
have your way with me in terms of controlling the direction of the
thread to your advantage, you think that some contrived reference to
my livelihood being affected by the way I handle the likes of you is
going to, somehow, influence my actions? Think again.

--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[Mac]

On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 10:14:41 -0500, Mike Berger wrote:

The freezing point and boiling point of water are both have
a clearly defined intrinsic meaning to a chemist.

[snip]

Well, "intrinsic" may be a bit to strong of a word. Boiling and freezing
points very considerably with pressure.

--Mac

 

[operator jay]

"Kitchen Man" <nannerbac@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cv8qa11gfiske58la0l0rg6r91bhchr0oc@4ax.com...

On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 22:59:18 -0500, "operator jay" <none@none.none
wrote:

You are the one with the requirements, assertions, and definitions, not
me.

Actually, the ones with the requirements, assertions, and definitions
are codes and organizations such as the NEC and the IEEE, and the
bothersome universities that teach the stuff.

If you have definitions of AC and DC handy from IEEE or someone, stick them
on here. I'd say that the (apparent) widespread disagreement means that,
functionally, there is no single pervasive definition for these terms, but
it would be interesting to see if some of these bodies have published
definitions. It would be really interesting if they had definitions, and
they didn't quite agree with one another, or if they were "wishy-washy".

On this point:

Picture my flashlight, battery powered. Generally this is considered a
dc
circuit. When I turn it on or off, there is 'change'. So is it in fact
an
AC flashlight? If the battery starts to die there is a change so is it
in
fact an AC battery? Etcetera. (These questions are rhetorical by the
way).
I know better than to try to pin a strict name on these things where
there
is not an (adequately) universal and strict definition.

You are talking about transients, and if you intend for the questions
to be rhetorical, then I think you should demonstrate some expertise
in the subject matter that shows why the questions' answers must be
obvious. I don't think they are, so I will answer the questions:

"show why the answers must be obvious" sounds like a peculiar concept. An
obvious answer inherently needs no explaining.

The behavior of the flashlight in your example is neither AC nor DC,
it is transient. The first case is the instantaneous step function
caused by the closing of a source to a circuit. The second case is a
long-term curved ramp caused by the decay of a voltage source. AC and
DC analyses are steady-state. AC analysis will never apply to the
example. DC analysis must be performed prior to the transient
analysis in order to provide a steady state model for the application
of time-sensitive mathematics.

You feel that neither AC nor DC is correct as a description for the
flashlight behavior. I wonder whether there is a sufficiently definitive
(and also agreeable) meaning of "AC" or of "DC" that would merit this
position. I infer from other posts that there are people who would say it
is DC. There may be others who would say it is AC. So a statement of fact
that it is neither AC nor DC is suspect. By the way, my rhetorical
questions were actually whether it is an AC flashlight and whether it is an
AC battery. The point of this was (I thought obviously) to illuminate the
difficulty in declaring some things to be AC or to be DC. There is a
certain ridiculousness (I thought obviously) in calling a flashlight AC or
in calling a battery AC. Yet it would be awkward (I thought obviously) in
adhering to calling it DC if one's description of DC was that the (voltage /
current) would essentially remain constant. Thus my (possibly obvious)
point and my rhetoricals. I'll work on them. Your response did not seem to
conradict my point.

There is quite a bit of information available on the web about circuit
analysis. Your curiosity is to be commended; you might consider a web
crawling adventure, or even an education in the field.

The web has lots of information and lots of misinformation, I think you'd
agree. I'm not sure that I have displayed curiosity in these posts. An
education in the field of circuit analysis? No, thanks, you go ahead.

And hey operator jay, what do you operate? Not electrical
substations, I wouldn't guess.

That's remarkably funny. What do you operate? Not your brain I wouldn't
guess.

j

 

[Kitchen Man]

On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 04:14:08 GMT, ehsjr <ehsjr@bellatlantic.net>
wrote:

Kitchen Man wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 14:33:39 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

It's a shame that those of us who give of our time in an effort to
edify the ignorant are often abused by imbeciles who can't take
correction gracefully.


It is equally a shame that there are those that are sometimes
incapable of offering correction gracefully, eh, John? If it pains
you so much to engage in your ungracious edifying, perhaps you would
do well to bugger off, and leave the stress of educating imbeciles to
those with more patience.


Interesting! I thought John's response to the op was
called for. The OP is going to get himself into trouble
with the attitutde he's exhibited. In my opinion, John
saw through the BS and called a spade a spade. I don't
know whether the OP got it or not - but John made it
clear that the BS wasn't fooling anybody.

I'll have to go back and read it again in light of
your post.

I simply feel it's prudent to carefully consider all responses, as
I've grown rather un-fond of the taste of my foot in my mouth. I
agree that the poster's attitude is obtuse at best, but flinging
off-hand insults is risky. I should know.

Besides, right now I'm the new guy in a new job after 30 years in
electronics, so I have to practice restraint. Practice, practice,
practice!

--
Al Brennan

"If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9,
then you would have a key to the universe." Nicola Tesla

 

[NSM]

"Mac" <foo@bar.net> wrote in message
newsan.2005.06.14.02.10.25.793121@bar.net...

On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 10:14:41 -0500, Mike Berger wrote:

The freezing point and boiling point of water are both have
a clearly defined intrinsic meaning to a chemist.

[snip]

Well, "intrinsic" may be a bit to strong of a word. Boiling and freezing
points very considerably with pressure.

And purity and other factors.

N

 

[The Phantom]

On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 12:11:31 -0800, floyd@barrow.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

The Phantom <phantom@aol.com> wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 07:58:46 -0800, floyd@barrow.com (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

*Snip*

Either that or we are back to Don Lancaster's correct statement
that they are meaningless terms anyway. They certainly are if
that is the way they are defined!

Don first said:
---------------------------------------
'"DC" is simply the first (or "offset" term in the Fourier expression
of
any repetitive waveform.

"AC" are all of the remaining components.'
----------------------------------------

Then he said:
----------------------------------------
'"AC" or "DC" are gross and meaningless oversimplifications.'
----------------------------------------

Which are we to believe?

There is no contradiction, so what is wrong with understanding both
statements?

The difficulty is understanding just what Don was getting at. His first post in its
entirety was:

--------------------------------

Bob Penoyer wrote:


A rectified AC waveform contains DC and AC components but if the
current isn't changing direction, it isn't alternating current. And,
if it isn't AC, it's DC.

Total and utter horseshit.

"DC" is simply the first (or "offset" term in the Fourier expression of
any repetitive waveform.

"AC" are all of the remaining components.

Changing the relative amplitude of the terms does NOT in any manner
change which is the first term and which are the remaining terms.

DC, of course, cannot exist at all ever. Because it would have to be
unvarying through infinite time.

Tutorials on my website.
---------------------------------

In this post he seems to be suggesting that Bob Penoyer's definitions of AC and DC were
"Total and utter horseshit", and follows with a couple of definitions which appear to be
offered as alternative definitions which presumably Don thought were *not* "Total and
utter horseshit". But then in his next post, he says:

---------------------------------
"AC" or "DC" are gross and meaningless oversimplifications.
---------------------------------

If he thinks "AC" and "DC" are gross and meaningless oversimplifications, why would he
offer alternative definitions of AC and DC to those given by Penoyer which Don thinks are
"Total and utter horseshit"? Why offer definitions of AC and DC at all if he thinks so
poorly of the terms? Because when people see him first disparaging someone else's
definitions and then offering definitions of his own, they're going to think he believes
his own definitions are good ones.

 

[James Sweet]

"cnctut" <cnctutwiler@wmconnect.com> wrote in message
news:1118716248.009332.105170@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Anyone ever check the VI phase angle on a home central airconditioning
unit? Would be interested in knowing a representative value.

Thanks

Tut

Normally these are PF corrected to about 0.90, so the current reading you
get will be 10-15% higher than the actual current unless you have a true RMS
meter.

 

[Mac]

On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 21:28:49 -0500, operator jay wrote:
[snip]

If you have definitions of AC and DC handy from IEEE or someone, stick
them on here. I'd say that the (apparent) widespread disagreement means
that, functionally, there is no single pervasive definition for these
terms, but it would be interesting to see if some of these bodies have
published definitions. It would be really interesting if they had
definitions, and they didn't quite agree with one another, or if they
were "wishy-washy".

There are really only two definitions put forth in this thread. One is
that AC refers to all non-zero frequency components of a signal, and DC
refers to the zero frequency (average) component of a signal.

The other camp believes that DC means a current whose direction doesn't
change, and AC means a current whose direction does change.

For me, the fact that a Voltage can be called DC proves that the other
camp is not right, or not entirely right. In fact, the OP was talking
about a DC Voltage. There was no mention of current at all.

--Mac

 

[John Popelish]

Mac wrote:

There are really only two definitions put forth in this thread. One is
that AC refers to all non-zero frequency components of a signal, and DC
refers to the zero frequency (average) component of a signal.

The other camp believes that DC means a current whose direction doesn't
change, and AC means a current whose direction does change.

For me, the fact that a Voltage can be called DC proves that the other
camp is not right, or not entirely right. In fact, the OP was talking
about a DC Voltage. There was no mention of current at all.

When the context is clear, people sometimes use the same word
(especially, informally) to mean one of several different things in
different contexts. The problem with the original post was that the
poster meant the opposite of what most of us would have assumed the
context implied, so we tried to explain that to him. Then he told us
either we were wrong or that it didn't matter, if we were capable of
figuring out what he meant. Some people are harder to help than
others. ;-)

 

[Floyd L. Davidson]

"NSM" <nowrite@to.me> wrote:

"Mac" <foo@bar.net> wrote in message
newsan.2005.06.14.02.10.25.793121@bar.net...

On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 10:14:41 -0500, Mike Berger wrote:

The freezing point and boiling point of water are both have
a clearly defined intrinsic meaning to a chemist.

[snip]

Well, "intrinsic" may be a bit to strong of a word. Boiling and freezing
points very considerably with pressure.

And purity and other factors.

Not to mention with *what* it is!

I knew a fellow one time who put together a nice little
experiment where he bolted everything together with nice shiny
nickel-cadmium plated screws.

He then proceeded to boil the ni-cad coating off the screws,
which plated the expensive ceramic insulators and shorted out
his thermionic diode.

Danged, several weeks of work shot because it just hadn't
occurred to him that ni-cad would boil at room temperature.

He eventually made it work though, using stainless steel
hardware, and when he wrote a thesis about what his diode did
and didn't do, they awarded him a PhD in Nuclear Engineering.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@barrow.com

 

[Dr. Polemic]

On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 23:15:06 -0800, floyd@barrow.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

"NSM" <nowrite@to.me> wrote:
"Mac" <foo@bar.net> wrote in message
newsan.2005.06.14.02.10.25.793121@bar.net...

On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 10:14:41 -0500, Mike Berger wrote:

The freezing point and boiling point of water are both have
a clearly defined intrinsic meaning to a chemist.

[snip]

Well, "intrinsic" may be a bit to strong of a word. Boiling and freezing
points very considerably with pressure.

And purity and other factors.

Not to mention with *what* it is!

I knew a fellow one time who put together a nice little
experiment where he bolted everything together with nice shiny
nickel-cadmium plated screws.

He then proceeded to boil the ni-cad coating off the screws,
which plated the expensive ceramic insulators and shorted out
his thermionic diode.

Danged, several weeks of work shot because it just hadn't
occurred to him that ni-cad would boil at room temperature.

I doubt that it *boils* at room temperature; evaporates slowly, maybe. At least, not at
the temperature of any rooms I've been in.

He eventually made it work though, using stainless steel
hardware, and when he wrote a thesis about what his diode did
and didn't do, they awarded him a PhD in Nuclear Engineering.

 

[Terry Bull]

If your symptom of poor quality output to the pre-amp out is correct then
you appear to have a fault within the tone/processing stages. Is there a
'Pure direct' or similar that bypasses these stages?
Assuming the sound is very low you may just be hearing breakthrough, which
probably points to something like a broken balance pot...

Hope that helps
Andrew


"Jamie" <jamie_5_not_valid_after_5_Please@charter.net> wrote in message
news:Mr5re.2805$eL5.753@fe04.lga...

Steve wrote:

My HK AVR-75's left front channel has almost no sound, and the sound it
does have is all high frequencies; no bass or midrange. The problem
occurs with any input, digital or analog, and with the speaker or
preamp outputs (so I'm pretty sure it's not in the power output
section). Any ideas? Please post here, or email to steve_wechsler (at)
yahoo(.)com (not the email I posted from; the spammers have taken it
over).

Thanks,

Steve

blown woofer?

or if its a multiple channel unit maybe you have a Class D amp
for the base and mid sections that is out

 

[Don Bowey]

On 6/13/05 10:01 PM, in article sfosa1dics75vdhajk3079g0scasm6rqp2@4ax.com,
"The Phantom" <phantom@aol.com> wrote:

DC, of course, cannot exist at all ever. Because it would have to be
unvarying through infinite time.

Horse pucky. I think I can afford to miss the tutorials on your website.

 

[Floyd L. Davidson]

Dr. Polemic <nospam@aol.com> wrote:

Danged, several weeks of work shot because it just hadn't
occurred to him that ni-cad would boil at room temperature.

I doubt that it *boils* at room temperature; evaporates slowly, maybe. At least, not at
the temperature of any rooms I've been in.

Oh, it boiled off! Damned fast too! And no, you wouldn't fit
into the 18" vacuum jar this was in.

The way to get ni-cad to boil at room temperature is simply
reduce the pressure to something significantly below its vapor
pressure. We did it knowingly with gold too once, and that was
nothing short of beautiful as far as the results went. The
entire inside of the bell jar was very faintly plated with gold.
That particular experiment was testing the voltage breakdown of
ceramic wafers, so in addition to the gold plating there was the
bluish white glow from a high voltage arc too. Really great
visual effects!

That was 40 years ago...

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@barrow.com

 

[Floyd L. Davidson]

Don Bowey <dbowey@comcast.net> wrote:

On 6/13/05 10:01 PM, in article sfosa1dics75vdhajk3079g0scasm6rqp2@4ax.com,
"The Phantom" <phantom@aol.com> wrote:

DC, of course, cannot exist at all ever. Because it would have to be
unvarying through infinite time.

Horse pucky. I think I can afford to miss the tutorials on your website.

Pure DC, or something close to it, is actually pretty rare
stuff.

Even on battery power plants, which are extremely good filters,
there is some AC on the leads of just about anything powered
from the battery unless either the battery or the load is all
but embedded in the other.

For example, the 48 volt battery plants that telephone companies
have, use some rather large cables to supply voltage to
equipment. Yet a filter is required at every fuse bay to
decouple the AC noise on the supply cable from the equipment in
the bay. Even then, the supply lines have an astounding amount
of AC noise on them.

That was particularly true back in the days of mechanical
switches, when a telco switch was filled with "DC" switched
lines that had mechanical contacts, and most of the loads being
switched were inductive.

There is even more of the same going on in modern digital
switching systems, minus the inductive kick, but those are
filtered much more effectively because unlike the old mechanical
monster, these new ones will malfunction themselves if the noise
isn't filtered out.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@barrow.com

 

[Palindr☝me]

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

Don Bowey <dbowey@comcast.net> wrote:

On 6/13/05 10:01 PM, in article sfosa1dics75vdhajk3079g0scasm6rqp2@4ax.com,
"The Phantom" <phantom@aol.com> wrote:


DC, of course, cannot exist at all ever. Because it would have to be
unvarying through infinite time.

Horse pucky. I think I can afford to miss the tutorials on your website.


Pure DC, or something close to it, is actually pretty rare
stuff.
snip

And is pretty cold - ask Thevenin.

--

Sue