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.
The picture on my Etrom 84cm Tv is slightly to big(vertically)
Watching the England vs Australia(Pro 20) last night I could not see
the score at the bottom of the screen properly.
I need to get into the service mode to adjust the vertical height
slightly.
Anyone know how to get into this mode?
Cheers
Rob
If he has proof then by all means post it- but in a relevant group, you canOn Mon, 13 Jun 2005 12:23:46 -0400 "rainbow" <rain.bowwwwt.net> wrote in
Message id: <B5SdnQlIPYGWLjDfRVn-rA@rogers.com>:
God is an almighty spirit, who cannot be seen, but knows all things
about us.
Proof please, or shut the fuck up.
Well John, it probably was cadmium plating, not ni-cad. And I'mOn Tue, 14 Jun 2005 08:32:09 -0800, floyd@barrow.com (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:
Dr. Polemic <nospam@aol.com> wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 01:14:42 -0800, floyd@barrow.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
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!
So, tell me, what is the vapor pressure of Cadmium at 20 degrees C?
I don't know. Look it up.
Takes a nice little vaccuum pump to do it though.
---
Yer fulla shit.
Amazing isn't it? We're actually witnessing a dispute over what AC and DC are? AndOn Mon, 13 Jun 2005 22:01:12 -0700, The Phantom <phantom@aol.com
wrote:
Total and utter horseshit.
"DC" is simply the first (or "offset" term in the Fourier expression of
any repetitive waveform.
DC, of course, cannot exist at all ever. Because it would have to be
unvarying through infinite time.
So, the first Fourier term is always zero. Got it.
Damn, this thread will hit 200 posts soon. The less the content, the
bigger the thread.
John
Yes. You should check with a meter first.Hi,
I need to replace my smoothing capacitors in my guitar amp - they're
5000uf 50v. I tried some 4700uf 63v ones but they blew up!! I couldn't
tell the polarity of the original ones - they just had a pink dot on
one of the terminals, which I assumed was negative, so wired the new
ones accordingly. Did they blow because of the incorrect polarity
Or maybe just sublimation. And he didn't say the chamber was held atOn Tue, 14 Jun 2005 13:07:05 -0400, John Popelish <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote:
John Fields wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 08:32:09 -0800, floyd@barrow.com (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:
Dr. Polemic <nospam@aol.com> wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 01:14:42 -0800, floyd@barrow.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
Dr. Polemic <nospam@aol.com> wrote:
snip
No way did he "...get ni-cad to boil at room temperature (by) simply
reduc(ing) the pressure to something *significantly* below its vapor
pressure. We did it knowingly with gold too once..."
Gold has a vapor pressure of 10^-11 torr at about 800 degrees. I don't think gold will
boil even in interstellar space (10^-17 torr) at 20 degrees. It *will* evaporate, though;
so will tungsten! Slowly!
Takes a nice little vaccuum pump to do it though.
Yer fulla shit.
I think he is confusing boiling with sputtering.
But he says it *boiled*; he couldn't be mistaken, could he?
In a case like this, "out-gas" would definitely be a better term,My point, since it went right over your head when stated as a
puzzle, is that temperature alone is not what defines when
something "boils", and some materials that you wouldn't normally
think of in terms of a vapor can in fact "boil". "Out-gas"
might be a better term.
As with many historic terms, they may be off the mark by today'sDon Bowey wrote:
No other esoteric, mindless
definitions are needed even though the terms AC and DC may be misnomers.
They are historic and work very well.
Don
The only tiny problem is that the definitions are wrong.
This is quite OT, but might be of interest, since we're so far OTOn Tue, 14 Jun 2005 10:11:03 -0800, floyd@barrow.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
Note the relative
vapor pressure of cadmium compared to other metals. Then think
about "a nice little vacuum pump".
Think about why the graphs on that web page don't go below 10^-7 torr. Then think about
cadmium's (extrapolated) vapor pressure of 10^-12 torr at 30 degrees.
http://www.veeco.com/learning/learning_vaporelements.asp
---John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 08:32:09 -0800, floyd@barrow.com (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:
Dr. Polemic <nospam@aol.com> wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 01:14:42 -0800, floyd@barrow.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
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!
So, tell me, what is the vapor pressure of Cadmium at 20 degrees C?
I don't know. Look it up.
Takes a nice little vaccuum pump to do it though.
---
Yer fulla shit.
Well John, it probably was cadmium plating, not ni-cad. And I'm
not sure what the actual temperature was, though it certainly
wasn't much above room temperature (the experiment failed before
it was exposed to significant nuclear radiation, which would
have provided heat).
Uh-huh... sure it did.However, the metal plating on the hardware boiled!
---Here's a chart you might want to look at. Note the relative
vapor pressure of cadmium compared to other metals. Then think
about "a nice little vacuum pump".
http://www.veeco.com/learning/learning_vaporelements.asp
My point, since it went right over your head when stated as a
puzzle, is that temperature alone is not what defines when
something "boils", and some materials that you wouldn't normally
think of in terms of a vapor can in fact "boil". "Out-gas"
might be a better term.
I said it was 40 years ago! And I make *no* claims about anyThe information on this web page doesn't indicate directly what the vapor pressure of
cadmium is at 20 degrees, but extrapolating the numbers in the table gives a value of
10^-12 torr at 30 degrees. It takes more than a "nice little vacuum pump" to achieve
this. But I see that you're waffling now; you now say that "I'm not sure what the actual
temperature was".
---On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 10:11:03 -0800, floyd@barrow.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 08:32:09 -0800, floyd@barrow.com (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:
Dr. Polemic <nospam@aol.com> wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 01:14:42 -0800, floyd@barrow.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
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!
So, tell me, what is the vapor pressure of Cadmium at 20 degrees C?
I don't know. Look it up.
Takes a nice little vaccuum pump to do it though.
---
Yer fulla shit.
Well John, it probably was cadmium plating, not ni-cad. And I'm
not sure what the actual temperature was, though it certainly
wasn't much above room temperature (the experiment failed before
it was exposed to significant nuclear radiation, which would
have provided heat).
However, the metal plating on the hardware boiled!
Here's a chart you might want to look at.
The information on this web page doesn't indicate directly what the vapor pressure of
cadmium is at 20 degrees, but extrapolating the numbers in the table gives a value of
10^-12 torr at 30 degrees. It takes more than a "nice little vacuum pump" to achieve
this. But I see that you're waffling now; you now say that "I'm not sure what the actual
temperature was". I would certainly agree that cadmium can be made to boil if the
temperature is high enough, but you claimed "room temperature". One thing is pretty
certain; you weren't "boiling" cadmium at 20 degrees because you have to get the pressure
below the vapor pressure of cadmium at 20 degrees before it "boils" and a "nice little
vacuum pump" of 40 years ago couldn't do that under a bell jar.
Note the relative
vapor pressure of cadmium compared to other metals. Then think
about "a nice little vacuum pump".
Think about why the graphs on that web page don't go below 10^-7 torr. Then think about
cadmium's (extrapolated) vapor pressure of 10^-12 torr at 30 degrees.
http://www.veeco.com/learning/learning_vaporelements.asp
My point, since it went right over your head
Did this go over your head, John?
when stated as a
puzzle, is that temperature alone is not what defines when
something "boils", and some materials that you wouldn't normally
think of in terms of a vapor can in fact "boil". "Out-gas"
might be a better term.
How much less?I could really care less...
nor have you ever designed a switch carrying power loads, to say that inthe "AC" equations are rigorous, and
apply equally well to your one-voltage DC when the frequency drops to
zero-
the reactance term of the changing magnitude [current equation] then goes
to zero.
fld said
That is an hilarious idea! If the magnitude is zero all the way
around... we aren't talking about AC or DC... maybe about
blown breakers or taking a coffee break, but not about current.
As I said, your position works only if you are in one corner of one part ofBecause the reactance equations only apply to varying magnitude, and they
do
not apply to reversing direction.
fld said
Then why would we be concerned at all about this reversing
direction, and give it a specific name and have a whole separate
field of study for it? Sounds like we need to be concerned with
varying magnitude, *not* with reversing direction. (Which is
what I've been saying...)
you really don't know much about power switches, do you?"--" <dehoberg@comcast.com> wrote:
"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@barrow.com> wrote:
"--" <dehoberg@comcast.com> wrote:
Strictly speaking, I believe the reactance (part of impedance)
equations apply to any variation in current magnitude. Their
appropriate
application does not in any way require reversing the charge.
Exactly.
1) I think one needs to define the term "alternating current" by its
phenomena rather than define it by what applies to "AC". In other
words,
define AC as alternating current -rather than defining AC as "anything
requiring an impedance calculation because of its magnitude
variation".
What value does that have? The problem is circuit analysis,
No, rather the problem is that many of the fundamental physical sciences
and
most of electrical engineering use the concept, and it is not used merely
by
a small corner of circuit analysis. The definition has to work for all
the
sciences where it may be used.
E.g., many switches use the "AC as reversing" concept for quenching
contact arcs during switching (as the current passes thru zero as
direction
reverses) and the defintion of AC as varying DC falls flat for that
purpose.
Install an AC designed switch on a varying DC circuit, and you may well
have
a safety switch contacts welded shut. Here, AC DEFINITELY means reversing
direction.
Bad example. That does *not* require a direction reversal. All
it requires is understanding that it is relative to the static
state.
It does happen that the static state in that specific case is
when a polarity reversal takes place, but in the general case it
is not required. In other examples both sides of the switch
might well be at some DC potential, that happens to be equal on
both sides at the time the switch is made, even though there is
no direction reversal.
which requires the division between DC and AC,
I believe the equations are not DC-AC specific - the "AC" term drops
to
zero if the change in magnitude drops to zero. Your rationale of using
the
equations does not hold up.
Everything concerned with reactance is AC specific. Nothing
concerned with reactance requires a polarity reversal.
Reactance is the essence of the difference between DC and AC,
not some notion of reversing polarity.
AC is defined as:
charge flow that changes direction.
which leaves the calculations for reactance out of the definition.
Which means it is worthless. Reactance *is* the significance.
3) In the definition approach to a phenomena, one deals with the
descriptive term and the phenomena itself and ignores the present
attached
The problem is defining something with no practical value.
We define air, and black holes, and impracticality.
All of which *does* have practical value.
And if memory serves me correctly, the "AC" equations are rigorous,
and
apply equally well to your one-voltage DC when the frequerncy drops to
zero-
the reactance term of the changing magnitude goes to zero.
That is an hilarious idea! If the magnitude is zero all the way
around... we aren't talking about AC or DC... maybe about
blown breakers or taking a coffee break, but not about current.
And "varying DC" is a contradiction in terms to begin with. Do
we actually need *four* states:
1 -- DC
2 -- Varying DC
3 -- AC
4 -- Steady AC
no, just two - reversing flow direction, and varying magnitude.
Oh? DC doesn't exist? What about "steady AC"? (That's two
exactly equal signals 180 degrees out of phase, combined in that
capacitor which can generate AC mentioned by John Fields,
perhaps???)
Because the reactance equations only apply to varying magnitude, and they
do
not apply to reversing direction.
Then why would we be concerned at all about this reversing
direction, and give it a specific name and have a whole separate
field of study for it? Sounds like we need to be concerned with
varying magnitude, *not* with reversing direction. (Which is
what I've been saying...)
As I understood, scienctific method is designed to remove personal
views
from science. Thus the definition,must stand alone, and since we can't
see
all that is ahead, science has to fall in behind a definition of that
phenomena in pure terms.
imho.......
A nice goal.
----------------
Alternating-direction Current, aka Alternating Current
Except that alternating direction has no significance. Changing
magnitude does. Why bother with alternating-direction at all,
it is just an insignificant, though interesting, part of the
more general case of changing magnitude. All of the same
equations apply.
Direction-specific Current, aka Direct Current.
And if you claim that only alternating direction current is AC,
then you have to have two sets of equations for DC, one for
non-varying magnitude and one for varying magnitude.
That doesn't make a lick of sense.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@barrow.com
Yea, I'd have to call BS on that one...On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 08:12:33 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 23:15:06 -0800, floyd@barrow.com (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:
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.
---
Nickel-cadmium usually refers to the metals used in fabricating a
family of secondary cells used in redchargeable batteries, while
cadmium, by itself, was once used to plate mechanical fasteners.
Just one more inconsistency in his postings. I didn't even mention
the nickel component
in his alleged plating because it, like gold, has a vapor pressure of
about 10^-11 torr at around 800 degrees, and thus won't boil at 20
degrees even in interstellar space.
But I think you're right. I've never heard of Nickel-cadmium plating
of screws, but I
used to use cad plated hardware all the time.
It
has dropped out of favor and its use may now be prohibited for that
purpose due to its toxicity and effect on the environment.
Your descriptions apply to *your* comments, not mine!apparently you have not seen the equations governing reactance to make the
statements you do about
So your one single point of exposure defines the entire field?deh said
the "AC" equations are rigorous, and
apply equally well to your one-voltage DC when the frequency drops to zero-
the reactance term of the changing magnitude [current equation] then goes to zero.
fld said
That is an hilarious idea! If the magnitude is zero all the way
around... we aren't talking about AC or DC... maybe about
blown breakers or taking a coffee break, but not about current.
nor have you ever designed a switch carrying power loads, to say that in
non-DC rated switches, arc quenching does not rely on current reversal.
Or to ground fault design, I might add.
That describes *your* position very well!deh said
Because the reactance equations only apply to varying magnitude, and they do
not apply to reversing direction.
fld said
Then why would we be concerned at all about this reversing
direction, and give it a specific name and have a whole separate
field of study for it? Sounds like we need to be concerned with
varying magnitude, *not* with reversing direction. (Which is
what I've been saying...)
As I said, your position works only if you are in one corner of one part of
all electrical phenomena, and if you use technicians tools rather than
engineers and scientists tools.
Actually, getting too deep into either one, or into any singleYou will just have to live with what the big boys in academia say is
alternating current - they are not going to change the widely applicable
proven rigorous for a circuit design technician's philosophical musings.
Well, I certainly do lack depth in that particular subject! But"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@barrow.com> wrote:
Bad example. That does *not* require a direction reversal. All
it requires is understanding that it is relative to the static
state.
you really don't know much about power switches, do you?
Dammmm what a run-on sentence!!! I'm not trying to be a grammar copone more observation, the UPs systems do not take neutral etc and the
three phsaes when have a fuse blown in any phase shall see a overload
for other two and the protection device shall trip etc in my acse this
did not happen and the two phases had a fused line still third y phase
could take current so much as to make the transformer burn etc so it
looks that it found path through neutral to complete the circuit etc
the neutral if i do not use the ups shouldnt have taken current from y
phase is it so?
D
Great isn't it ???Damn, this thread will hit 200 posts soon. The less the content, the
bigger the thread.
Amazing isn't it? We're actually witnessing a dispute over what AC
and DC are? And
whether such things even exist?
Unless it is a solid. Then it sublimates. Boiling only happens toThe idea that water boils at 100C and freezes at 0C, without
some mention of pressure, has little meaning. Water can "boil"
at 0C too.
At that age, I'd also suspect oxidized/dirty contacts on the controls.
Have
you tried playing with all the knobs, buttons and switches (speakers A/B,
tone defeat, loudness, bass, treble, balance, etc) on the front panel?
Many
times this will help to isolate the bad contact since the behavior will
change as you move the control between different positions. Once you
determine the cause, a good cleaning with a good contact cleaner should
help
a lot.
Also, as a thought, is there a speaker relay near the final output? If
so,
it is possible that the left channel contacts are pitted or worn and need
some attention. Many times you can remove the plastic cover on the relay
and assert some pressure to see if the behavior changes. If it does, then
you can use a small file or some emery cloth and contact cleaner to try to
clean up the contacts.
Good luck!
Bob
"Tim Mitchell" <timng@sabretechnology.co.uk> wrote in message
news:vhGSBguGRtrCFAt0@tega.co.uk...
In article <1118723229.619344.265500@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
TDWesty <vwdiesels@gmail.com> writes
I have an NAD 3125 integrated amp (1986 vintage) with a strange left
channel problem. With a lower level input, such as my 4125 tuner, or a
VCR, the left amp channel drops out to almost nothing. Switching the
amp to mono equalizes both channels. I have swapped speakers, wires,
patch cables, and tried all of the line level inputs on the amp, with
the same results. I have swapped left&right, etc, but the problem is
always the left channel of the amp. The tuner works fine on both
channels with another amp.
With a higher level input such as CD or DVD, both channels work and
sound fine. The left channel behaviour was inconsistent for a while,
but is now consistent, and has been for months.
I have done some reading about replacing caps on older amps, along with
checking for bad solder joints, but have found no visible problems in
either case. I have had the amp for 20 years, and it has never been
abused.