Toshiba TV29C90 problem; Image fades to black...

[Engineer]

"Wayneos" <wayne_m_evans@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118743605.352461.261670@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

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!!

(snip)

What sad story... gotta go and get a beer so I feel better <g>
Pink is Positive... Red is positive... Plus is positive... What other
clues have I missed?
Measure twice, solder once!
Cheers,
Roger

 

[Dr. Polemic]

On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 14:19:24 -0500, John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

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).

---
So now we don't even know whether it was cadmium or not, we also don't
know what the temperature or the pressure was in the chamber, _and_
we learn that the sample was being subjected to ionizing radiation!

What next?

Well, now he has informed us that: "And I make *no* claims about any
absolute accuracy of any specific detail."

---

However, the metal plating on the hardware boiled!

Uh-huh... sure it did.
---

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.

---
Blah, blah, blah, fucking blah.
More posturing, platitudes and crapola.

'Outgassing' is an entirely different phenomenon which manifests
itself as the extraction of gas entrained in a material by and into a
vacuum surrounding the gassy material. A good example is the frothing
that occurs when a two-part epoxy is mixed and then placed in a
vacuum. After the release of the gas and the collapse of the froth,
it would still be possible for the epoxy to boil in the vacuum if the
vacuum were hard enough and the temperature high enough, but that
would then be true boiling and _not_ outgassing.

Just so you won't have to extrapolate to 20°C from those charts of
yours, here's Dr. Polemic's data:

"The CRC handbook indicates that the vapor pressure of cadmium is
about 10^-12 torr at room temperature (20 degrees). This is better
than the vacuum at the moon. The best vacuum pumps available today
can't hit that in a bell jar, much less 40 years ago."

 

[John Fields]

On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 10:51:11 -0800, floyd@barrow.com (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

Don Bowey <dbowey@comcast.net> wrote:
On 6/14/05 2:28 AM, in article 87oea9p9s6.fld@barrow.com, "Floyd L.
Davidson" <floyd@barrow.com> wrote:
I agree with your examples of DC power supplies and AC noise. Been there,
done that.

Defining how may angels can dance on a DC power cable without having to
redefine it is pointless, however. Everyone I knew in the telco industry
had good, workable terms for the cause of the need for filters, not only at
the FB, but at the equipment rack too; it was noise, trash, crap.
spikes....., but the 48V and 130V "power" were always DC and we knew the
noise had to be dealt with as AC riding the DC. No other esoteric, mindless
definitions are needed even though the terms AC and DC may be misnomers.
They are historic and work very well.

Exactly.

---
LOL, instead of grasping at straws you're now grasping for the
coattails of someone who knows what he's talking about, and you're
using that "Exactly" crack to make it seem like what you've been
positing all along has finally been iterated by someone with some
credibility.
---

But look at all the people claiming it *isn't* AC! Very clearly
anyone who claims the various "noise, trash, crap, spikes" etc
are *not* AC, needs a reality check on their definition of AC.

---
And here, now, you're using your newly found unilateral alliance to
vehemently try to add credence to your error-plagued hypotheses and to
pooh-pooh your naysayers. It won't work. Got some circuits? Got
some numbers? Post 'em and end the bullshit or else get the fuck out
of Dodge.
---

On the other hand, while their definition and understanding of
it is clearly invalid, there is no lack of wide spread belief
that it is correct. Which I do find somewhat amazing...

---
Only because it's at odds with what you think is correct which,
because of your obvious lack of technical training, has you in
blinders.

However, you do seem to have a nice command of the language, so there
may be hope for you yet.

--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[Christian Treldal]

Den Tue, 14 Jun 2005 08:22:33 -0700. skrev Wayneos:

Yeah, all the clues were there, looking at it now I can't believe I
wired 'em up wrong! Should have just taken the Ł10 and set fire to it.
Oh well, learn by your mistakes and all that...

And if you gave 10Ł your component pusher will be laughing all the way to
the bank;-)

--
Best whishes

Christian Treldal

 

[John Fields]

On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 11:21:21 -0800, floyd@barrow.com (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

The idea that water boils at 100C and freezes at 0C, without
some mention of pressure, has little meaning. Water can "boil"
at 0C too.

---
As John Popelish remarked, boiling is only possible if the medium in
which the boiling is occurring is a liquid, so if the water has turned
into ice at 0°C, sublimation is the mechanism which water molecules
will use to evaporate from their parent structure.

Since this a technical forum and we _do_ have ground rules, I believe
we generally agree that, unless otherwise specified, standard pressure
is defined as 760 millimeters of mercury and standard temperature is
defined as zero degrees celcius.

While the boiling point of water is dependent on pressure, the
freezing point, I believe, is not.

At least, not to a great extent. I don't have any data to support
that position, but I'd love to see some, if it's out there.


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[VWWall]

John Fields wrote:

On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 11:21:21 -0800, floyd@barrow.com (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:



The idea that water boils at 100C and freezes at 0C, without
some mention of pressure, has little meaning. Water can "boil"
at 0C too.


---
As John Popelish remarked, boiling is only possible if the medium in
which the boiling is occurring is a liquid, so if the water has turned
into ice at 0°C, sublimation is the mechanism which water molecules
will use to evaporate from their parent structure.

Since this a technical forum and we _do_ have ground rules, I believe
we generally agree that, unless otherwise specified, standard pressure
is defined as 760 millimeters of mercury and standard temperature is
defined as zero degrees celcius.

While the boiling point of water is dependent on pressure, the
freezing point, I believe, is not.

At least, not to a great extent. I don't have any data to support
that position, but I'd love to see some, if it's out there.

Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, Twenty Fifth Edition, Table p.1696.

1 kg/sq.cm. = 0.0 deg C. to 2200 kg/sq.cm = -22.1 deg C.

All you have to do is go ice skating! You skate on a thin layer of
water, produced by the pressure of the skates. Water is also one of the
few liquids that expands when it freezes, which is fortunate for life on
this earth!

--
Virg Wall, K6EVE

 

[Larry Brasfield]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message news:45rua15vf6p6nrmk81jr3cbf9717jq1aiu@4ax.com...

Since this a technical forum and we _do_ have ground rules, I believe
we generally agree that, unless otherwise specified, standard pressure
is defined as 760 millimeters of mercury and standard temperature is
defined as zero degrees celcius.

I believe that in this forum we assume temperature is a
variable that must be accommodated in design, unless
otherwise stated. I cannot imagine why any unstated
temperature would be assumed to be 0 oC. I suppose
sea-level atmospheric pressure is often assumed, but
where it matters, it should not be assumed at all.

While the boiling point of water is dependent on pressure, the
freezing point, I believe, is not.

You might want to consider the "triple point" of water,
below which pressure "melting point" is meaningless and
the "freezing point" varies considerably with pressure.

At least, not to a great extent. I don't have any data to support
that position, but I'd love to see some, if it's out there.

See: http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/phase.html

--
--Larry Brasfield
email: donotspam_larry_brasfield@hotmail.com
Above views may belong only to me.

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 11:12:09 -0700, Dr. Polemic <nospam@aol.com>
wrote:

On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 07:44:13 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On 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.

Amazing isn't it? We're actually witnessing a dispute over what AC and DC are? And
whether such things even exist?

There seems to be a consensus that, since no signal is absolutely
stable with time, then DC must not exist. That does simplify life.

John

 

[Brian]

DIE THREAD!!!!!!!

 

[Fred Bloggs]

Larry Brasfield wrote:

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message news:45rua15vf6p6nrmk81jr3cbf9717jq1aiu@4ax.com...

Since this a technical forum and we _do_ have ground rules, I believe
we generally agree that, unless otherwise specified, standard pressure
is defined as 760 millimeters of mercury and standard temperature is
defined as zero degrees celcius.


I believe that in this forum we assume temperature is a
variable that must be accommodated in design, unless
otherwise stated. I cannot imagine why any unstated
temperature would be assumed to be 0 oC. I suppose
sea-level atmospheric pressure is often assumed, but
where it matters, it should not be assumed at all.


While the boiling point of water is dependent on pressure, the
freezing point, I believe, is not.


You might want to consider the "triple point" of water,
below which pressure "melting point" is meaningless and
the "freezing point" varies considerably with pressure.


At least, not to a great extent. I don't have any data to support
that position, but I'd love to see some, if it's out there.


See: http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/phase.html

Using the usual meaning of "freezing" which is the transition from
liquid to solid, that graph shows "freezing" occurring at 273K over a
million to one range in pressure. I would say that the statement "While
the boiling point of water is dependent on pressure, the freezing point,
I believe, is not" is essentially true- to all except a nitwit like you.

 

[Larry Brasfield]

"Fred Bloggs" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
message news:42AF80AE.4040001@nospam.com...

Larry Brasfield wrote:
"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message news:45rua15vf6p6nrmk81jr3cbf9717jq1aiu@4ax.com...

Since this a technical forum and we _do_ have ground rules, I believe
we generally agree that, unless otherwise specified, standard pressure
is defined as 760 millimeters of mercury and standard temperature is
defined as zero degrees celcius.


I believe that in this forum we assume temperature is a
variable that must be accommodated in design, unless
otherwise stated. I cannot imagine why any unstated
temperature would be assumed to be 0 oC. I suppose
sea-level atmospheric pressure is often assumed, but
where it matters, it should not be assumed at all.


While the boiling point of water is dependent on pressure, the
freezing point, I believe, is not.


You might want to consider the "triple point" of water,
below which pressure "melting point" is meaningless and
the "freezing point" varies considerably with pressure.


At least, not to a great extent. I don't have any data to support
that position, but I'd love to see some, if it's out there.


See: http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/phase.html


Using the usual meaning of "freezing" which is the transition from liquid to solid, that graph shows "freezing" occurring at 273K
over a million to one range in pressure.

It does not. The straight part of the liquid/solid phase
boundary covers less than 5 orders of magnitude. "Over a
million to one" would be more than 6 orders of magnitude.

I would say that the statement "While the boiling point of water is dependent on pressure, the freezing point, I believe, is not"
is essentially true

In a discussion that has involved sublimation, to exclude
that part of the phase space would be essentially silly.

- to all except a nitwit like you.

Off your meds again, Fred? I expect you to be more
careful with your graph reading before breaking into
your frothing-at-the-mouth modes.

--
--Larry Brasfield
email: donotspam_larry_brasfield@hotmail.com
Above views may belong only to me.

 

[Ratch]

"Kevin Aylward" <see_website@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Gt9re.6293$ZG3.1158@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
Bob Penoyer <bob@NOSPAMbobpenoyer.com> wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 10:36:54 -0400, "Tam/WB2TT"
t-tammaru@c0mca$t.net> wrote:

snip

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."

Actually, DC from a rectifier *is* "zero frequency", to the
degree that it is DC. Of course until the AC is filtered out,
it has both AC and DC components.

The output of a rectifier contains both AC and DC. You put a filter
on it to get close to pure DC.

That is *precisely* correct. (It just doesn't tell enough of
the story to explain the confusion of this "flows in one
direction" definition of DC.)

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.

The output of a rectifier until filtered *does* have both AC and
DC, which actually is another way of saying that yes it *does*
change directions.

What? you say!

The problem is that "direction" only has meaning when measured
in comparison some specific point of reference. If you have
three different reference points, one at the DC level, one at
the peak positive swing and one at the peak negative swing, you
have three very different views of "direction" for current flow:

Since we are quibbling her on terms, lets get this bit straight shall
we.

"Current flow" is wrong. Its simply "current" or "charge flow".
"Current" already contains the notion of "flow".

Atta boy, Kevin. Ratch

Kevin Aylward
informationEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[Floyd L. Davidson]

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 10:51:11 -0800, floyd@barrow.com (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

Don Bowey <dbowey@comcast.net> wrote:
On 6/14/05 2:28 AM, in article 87oea9p9s6.fld@barrow.com, "Floyd L.
Davidson" <floyd@barrow.com> wrote:
I agree with your examples of DC power supplies and AC noise. Been there,
done that.

Defining how may angels can dance on a DC power cable without having to
redefine it is pointless, however. Everyone I knew in the telco industry
had good, workable terms for the cause of the need for filters, not only at
the FB, but at the equipment rack too; it was noise, trash, crap.
spikes....., but the 48V and 130V "power" were always DC and we knew the
noise had to be dealt with as AC riding the DC. No other esoteric, mindless
definitions are needed even though the terms AC and DC may be misnomers.
They are historic and work very well.

Exactly.

---
LOL, instead of grasping at straws you're now grasping for the
coattails of someone who knows what he's talking about, and you're
using that "Exactly" crack to make it seem like what you've been
positing all along has finally been iterated by someone with some
credibility.

What's the matter John, are you bitter that several people, who do
understand the theory and practice, have said you are wrong...

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

 

[Rono]

These units have a "Sony" SBX-1637-11 audio pcocessor!
Here's a link. Rono.

http://atlascomponents.com/loaditem.html?itempage=item784830886.html

 

[John Popelish]

John Fields wrote:
(snip)

While the boiling point of water is dependent on pressure, the
freezing point, I believe, is not.

At least, not to a great extent. I don't have any data to support
that position, but I'd love to see some, if it's out there.

If you are willing to consider extreme conditions, not only does the
freezing point change, but there are many ice phases, each
structurally distinct and with temperature and pressure boundaries.
http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/phase.html

 

[Max Harding vk3jin]

replace the leaky caps as well as all discolored or faded caps.......this is
a good place to start to get this unit working.if you have a ESR meter then
use it on the caps first. if you don't have a ESR meter then get a Bob
Parker model.
"TDWesty" <vwdiesels@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118758423.882227.149640@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

I was given an Akai AA-R32 receiver from the 80s, which I am now using
while I fix my NAD 3125. My first impression of this unit was not good
- although it clearly has more power power than my NAD, it sounds dull,
flat and muddy. Not all that surprising I suppose, but then I noticed
that all four large caps (10,000 uF 50V) have leaked. Is it worth
replacing these caps, and are they likely to make a noticeable
difference in sound quality?

Is anyone familiar with this receiver? I don't expect it to match my
NAD, but if I can make it acceptable for a second system, I'll spend a
bit of time on it.

Thanks.

 

[Roberto Herraiz]

First try connecting a earphone.

"dub" <jwkoepplin@cox.net> escribió en el mensaje
news:1118801379.820814.126260@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

Hey. I have a 25" Samsung (about 11 years old) and I don't get any
sound from the TV unless I'm watching a DVD or playing PS2. I don't
understand. I've fiddled with wires and cables and gone into the menu
and changed around the AIR/CATV stuff, but still no sound. Any
thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

 

[Ban]

Bob Penoyer wrote:

There are certainly AC components in the waveform. But the sum of all
the components, including the DC component, never changes direction,
so the total signal is a DC signal. Here, "DC" does NOT mean
"constant"; it means unidirectional.

Anyone who went to university studying a natural science will know the
meaning of all of these terms and the others expose their ignorance by
speculating and making up instead. You clearly belong to the last category.
--
ciao Ban
Bordighera, Italy

 

[Fred Bloggs]

Larry Brasfield wrote:

"Fred Bloggs" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
message news:42AF80AE.4040001@nospam.com...

Larry Brasfield wrote:

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message news:45rua15vf6p6nrmk81jr3cbf9717jq1aiu@4ax.com...


Since this a technical forum and we _do_ have ground rules, I believe
we generally agree that, unless otherwise specified, standard pressure
is defined as 760 millimeters of mercury and standard temperature is
defined as zero degrees celcius.


I believe that in this forum we assume temperature is a
variable that must be accommodated in design, unless
otherwise stated. I cannot imagine why any unstated
temperature would be assumed to be 0 oC. I suppose
sea-level atmospheric pressure is often assumed, but
where it matters, it should not be assumed at all.



While the boiling point of water is dependent on pressure, the
freezing point, I believe, is not.


You might want to consider the "triple point" of water,
below which pressure "melting point" is meaningless and
the "freezing point" varies considerably with pressure.



At least, not to a great extent. I don't have any data to support
that position, but I'd love to see some, if it's out there.


See: http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/phase.html


Using the usual meaning of "freezing" which is the transition from liquid to solid, that graph shows "freezing" occurring at 273K
over a million to one range in pressure.


It does not. The straight part of the liquid/solid phase
boundary covers less than 5 orders of magnitude. "Over a
million to one" would be more than 6 orders of magnitude.

Bull- it goes from 10^3 to 10^9 Pa, idiot.

I would say that the statement "While the boiling point of water is dependent on pressure, the freezing point, I believe, is not"
is essentially true


In a discussion that has involved sublimation, to exclude
that part of the phase space would be essentially silly.

There is no discussion- the statement was about water "freezing",
pseudo-intellectual.

- to all except a nitwit like you.


Off your meds again, Fred? I expect you to be more
careful with your graph reading before breaking into
your frothing-at-the-mouth modes.

More of your parroting insults from other mediocre and pretentious
garbage like yourself? Like I say- you are typical USENET garbage, all
mouth and heap of worthless garbage in the physical world. My, how that
keyboard empowers unskilled nobodies...

>

 

[Fred Bloggs]

Ban wrote:

Bob Penoyer wrote:

There are certainly AC components in the waveform. But the sum of all
the components, including the DC component, never changes direction,
so the total signal is a DC signal. Here, "DC" does NOT mean
"constant"; it means unidirectional.


Anyone who went to university studying a natural science will know the
meaning of all of these terms and the others expose their ignorance by
speculating and making up instead. You clearly belong to the last category.

That is the pseudo-intellectuals for you, speculating about elementary
definitions- and later on you find even a second order network is
hopelessly beyond their abilities of computation. They are worthless
zeroes of the highest order. The original weakling who started the
thread with his ignorant question offered no discussion about direct
responses to its question, preferring instead to pseudo-intellectualize
about the fundamental principles of terminology, in a weak and
ineffective way- OP=ZEROID.