Toshiba TV29C90 problem; Image fades to black...

On 6/17/05 3:59 PM, in article 8kj6b155soebk7unvugo5chrs2ol8t8m1p@4ax.com,
"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 10:45:27 -0800, floyd@barrow.com (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
I'm not talking about what _I_ want to read, ...

In fact, that's all you *ever* talk about.

And "nashing" of teeth??? Tsk, tsk, tsk...

Perfect example!

---
Learn to use the language and its subtleties properly if you want to
be considered learned or, at the very least, competent in American
English.

The omission of the 'g' at the beginning of 'nashing' is inexcusable
and marks you as a churl.
Click to expand...
This type of discussion is pointless and harmful. I've known brilliant
people, some at Bell Labs, who had difficulty spelling. Some Engineers and
Scientists had excellent command of the language (both English and
English!), but weren't as "swift" as the ones with language usage or
spelling problems. It's the luck of the draw either way.

It's quite difficult sometimes, but lets all try to be a bit nicer.

Awaiting flames.....

Don
 
On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 21:58:48 -0500, "operator jay" <none@none.none>
wrote:

Either what I wrote did not come out how I intended, or you disagree that
de's can be used to solve a circuit. You almost alluded to de's before so
probably that's not it. So to Mr. Kelly, let me rephrase that to a more
bland "Yes. Although I guess one could use time domain." Apologies.
Click to expand...
Didn't get what you meant by "de's." It is now somewhat apparent that
you mean "differential equations." So ok then, apologies all around.

And to you, too, Al. I'm sorry. Sorry you got fired from the cafeteria at
Motorola. After 30 years "in electronics" that's a pretty hard break for
the "Kitchen Man".
Click to expand...
Actually, I've never worked for Motorola. I didn't even know they had
a cafeteria. They have some nice cafeterias at Microsoft, but I've
never worked for them, either. You must have me confused with some
other guy who's good in the kitchen *and* the garage. It happens.

--
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
 
cs_posting@hotmail.com wrote:
The fundamental problem with the term "DC sine wave" is that it
suggests a way of viewing the situation which is incompatible with
finding answers to the posed questions.

To answer the question, the offset AC waveform has to be considered as
the sum or a DC voltage and an AC component, with their effects on the
R, L, and C analyzed seperately. The L and the C don't care about your
DC offset, so you must still think of the signal as AC in order to
understand their behavior. They don't care that the overall signal
doesn't reverse polarity, they only care that derivative of voltage
with respect to time is non-zero.
Click to expand...
Er - there are cases where the L will be saturated by
the DC component.

Ed
 
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 15:55:50 -0800, floyd@barrow.com (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 10:45:27 -0800, floyd@barrow.com (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
I'm not talking about what _I_ want to read, ...

In fact, that's all you *ever* talk about.

And "nashing" of teeth??? Tsk, tsk, tsk...

Perfect example!

---
Learn to use the language and its subtleties properly if you want to
be considered learned or, at the very least, competent in American
English.

The omission of the 'g' at the beginning of 'nashing' is inexcusable
and marks you as a churl.

Spelling flames, John, just *do* become you perfectly!
Click to expand...
---
Flame or not, the fact remains that you posit yourself as an arbiter
of the proper use of the language and yet clumsily (and helplessly, it
seems) make errors which belie your claim. I like to point them out
because they're just another example of your hypocrisy and I wouldn't
want you to think that your bullshit went undetected.

--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer
 
On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 06:05:34 GMT, ehsjr <ehsjr@bellatlantic.net> Gave
us:

cs_posting@hotmail.com wrote:
The fundamental problem with the term "DC sine wave" is that it
suggests a way of viewing the situation which is incompatible with
finding answers to the posed questions.

To answer the question, the offset AC waveform has to be considered as
the sum or a DC voltage and an AC component, with their effects on the
R, L, and C analyzed seperately. The L and the C don't care about your
DC offset, so you must still think of the signal as AC in order to
understand their behavior. They don't care that the overall signal
doesn't reverse polarity, they only care that derivative of voltage
with respect to time is non-zero.


Er - there are cases where the L will be saturated by
the DC component.

Ed
Click to expand...
Yes, and there are even inductors that are specifically selected to
saturate and thereby change to a reduced inductance in operation.

Even without a DC offset.

A "hard start" choke in an oscillator circuit that begins at one
given inductance, yet has a very small core cross section will provide
the shift need to start the swing, then saturate quickly so as to not
steal power from the loop. Very important on low consumption
miniature power supplies, for example. The inductance keeps the supply
from having a hard start issue at power up, yet gets out of the way in
normal operation due to the ease at which its overtly small core
saturates, shifting its inductance down, which steals less energy from
the oscillator.
 
On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 04:56:59 -0500, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> Gave us:

Flame or not, the fact remains that you posit yourself as an arbiter
of the proper use of the language and yet clumsily (and helplessly, it
seems) make errors which belie your claim. I like to point them out
because they're just another example of your hypocrisy and I wouldn't
want you to think that your bullshit went undetected.


John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer
Click to expand...

I'd say very much so LESS than professional.
 
On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 10:53:48 GMT, TokaMundo <TokaMundo@weedizgood.org>
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 04:56:59 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> Gave us:


Flame or not, the fact remains that you posit yourself as an arbiter
of the proper use of the language and yet clumsily (and helplessly, it
seems) make errors which belie your claim. I like to point them out
because they're just another example of your hypocrisy and I wouldn't
want you to think that your bullshit went undetected.


John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer


I'd say very much so LESS than professional.
Click to expand...
---
I'm sure this will come as a great shock to you, but your commentary
is unimportant.

--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer
 
On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 07:35:52 -0500, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> Gave us:

I'm sure this will come as a great shock to you, but your commentary
is unimportant.
Click to expand...
You shock no one. You are droll, at best.

Ha! You think your commentary is important? You don't even know how
to designate a clock crystal on a schematic properly.

We can only hope that one day you receive a *real* "great shock",
you self important idiot.
 
On 18 Jun 2005 06:42:29 -0700, cs_posting@hotmail.com Gave us:

ehsjr wrote:
cs_posting@hotmail.com wrote:

The L and the C don't care about your
DC offset, so you must still think of the signal as AC in order to
understand their behavior. They don't care that the overall signal
doesn't reverse polarity, they only care that derivative of voltage
with respect to time is non-zero.


Er - there are cases where the L will be saturated by
the DC component.

Ed

What you are suggesting is a good issue to keep in mind for the real
world (and one I had overlooked).

However, what you have actually said is not true.
Click to expand...
There ARE such cases. In such cases, the L value will drop.
An inductance - a specific element we both referred to as L - will not
saturate. Rather it will behave in accordance with the simple
mathematical model of inductance.
Click to expand...
Sure. If one states a fixed L for a calculation, then DC offsets
are ignored. Perhaps this is why high frequency inductors are hybrid
cores, as opposed to steel or iron as in a low frequency case.
The real-world magnetic device chosen to play the role of an inductor
can saturate, and it's something we might need to think about. However
the propensity towards saturation would need to be specified by
additional parameters beyond a simple constant value of L. While we're
at it, we should put in parasitic resistance, temperature dependence,
possible effects of external fields, and probably some other things
that I'm not thinking about.

If asked to solve a problem with an inductance, you treat it as such.
If asked to solve a problem with an inductor, you have to consider the
broader properties of that device, of which inductance is only one, and
not necesssarily a constant one.
Click to expand...
I see what you are saying. You are declaring/regarding it as a mere
number that gets plugged into a formula. OK. In that case you are
correct... the value is immutable... however...

If one must regard the junction potential of a diode in making a
circuit calculation for a circuit which includes a diode, one must
also make calculations for the parasitic, etc. effects of other
components as well, when designing or discussing them.

The *ideal* circuit scenario is one for the classroom in which the
basic fundamentals are conveyed. After that, the instructor
immediately conveys the whys and wherefors of the REAL world
scenarios making a direct distinction between the two.

Out here, in the real world, one needs to consider real world
effects. I see from your explanation and distinction between the two
that you know this. So, for the real world...

DC offsets saturating an inductor is most certainly a needed
consideration, if the circuit so demands, just as knowing what the on
resistance of a transistor is, or the junction potential of a diode in
a circuit which contains such elements.

Out here... in the perimeter, there are no stars...

Out here... we is stoned... immaculate.
 
On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 14:33:09 GMT, TokaMundo <TokaMundo@weedizgood.org>
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 07:35:52 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> Gave us:

I'm sure this will come as a great shock to you, but your commentary
is unimportant.

You shock no one. You are droll, at best.

Ha! You think your commentary is important?
Click to expand...
---
Perhaps not, but at least it's accurate.
---

You don't even know how
to designate a clock crystal on a schematic properly.
Click to expand...
---
Really? A clock _crystal_ usually carries the reference designator
"Y" followed by a numerical identifier. If you're referring to "U"1
on the schematic I recently posted to abse, it would have been
apparent to anyone who knows how to read a schematic that U1 is a
clock _oscillator_ carrying the common "U" (Unit) reference
designation. Not only was its output connected to the clock input of
a counter, (that should have been a clue, since a clock _crystal_
would have been surrounded by its supporting components) but its
operating frequency "32768Hz" was written on the schematic in a
location that could only have associated it with U1.

So what it basically boils down to is that _you_, dear boy, can't tell
the difference between a crystal and a clock oscillator.
---

We can only hope that one day you receive a *real* "great shock",
you self important idiot.
Click to expand...
---
That day will come when you post something that isn't banal, so it
looks like your hopes are dashed from the start.

--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer
 
TokaMundo wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 07:35:52 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> Gave us:

I'm sure this will come as a great shock to you, but your commentary
is unimportant.

You shock no one. You are droll, at best.

Ha! You think your commentary is important? You don't even know how
to designate a clock crystal on a schematic properly.

We can only hope that one day you receive a *real* "great shock",
you self important idiot.
Click to expand...

And you are too damn stupid to recognize the component as a
oscillator module. The "U" designator is used this way by a lot of
manufacturers since it is not a crystal, and at the design level it is
just another chip.

PLONK!

--
Former professional electron wrangler.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida
 
"TDWesty" <vwdiesels@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118983405.653035.211470@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
My NAD 3125 may need new caps (it is 20 years old).
Click to expand...
(snip)

The one problem my amp has (see earlier post) seems to be isolated
to
the left channel infrasonic filter section. Assuming I can resolve
this
be replacing the caps in that section, should I just quit there?
Click to expand...
(snip)

Start with the switches, clean them thoroughly. I have fixed several
recycled and junked stereo receivers from the 1970's an 80's and the
most common fix is to clean the switches (next is dial lamps.) In one
case the switch was damaged (no spares), so I jumpered the function on
the board (only lost the tape-in option, no big deal, still have AUX.)
Your problem does not suggest faulty electrolytic capacitors.
Cheers,
Roger
 
In message <ePKse.20669$2K4.10277@trnddc08>, James Sweet
<jamessweet@hotmail.com> writes
"RonKZ650" <RonKZ650@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1118978375.384782.10320@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Very common problem is a bad PLL IC in the tuner SDA3202-2 is the
number and it's an absolute bitch to replace.


But he said tapping fixes it, I've never seen a vibration sensitive IC
before.
No, he didn't say that, he's stated twice now that the tapping only
Click to expand...
cured the no pic fault. Once he'd got the tube working then he
discovered the tuner didn't work. BTW, I have seen a vibration sensitive
IC, must have been a bond wire or something but it was an EPROM which
'looped' back to 0 intermittently when you were trying to read above
0x03fff. Tapping the chip would cause the problem to appear more
frequently and could be demonstrated in a little test jig we threw
together because it was such an unusual fault.
--
Clint Sharp
 
Common as Dog Poo...MCM / Global has them.
kip

"TDWesty" <vwdiesels@gmail.com> wrote in m



essage news:1119116907.180954.226340@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
I've sprayed all the switches & pots with contact cleaner, and the
resistance across the terminals off all the input switches are the same
- about 0.5 ohms. It is a bank of 4 switches (tape, cd, tuner, phono)
soldered directly to the board, so without a desoldering tool, removal
looks to be fairly tricky. Tape works fine, CD & tuner are bad in the
left channel.

I may try to replace the transistor for the infrasonic filter, which is
apparently bypassed for the tape input. I need to find one, it is not a
common one - C1845.
Click to expand...
 
On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 10:41:36 -0500, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> Gave us:

So what it basically boils down to is that _you_, dear boy, can't tell
the difference between a crystal and a clock oscillator.
Click to expand...
No. It "boils down" to the fact that YOU do not know how to
designate components on a schematic.

They ARE supposed to be easily interpreted, not your "I don't give a
crap, as long as my moniker is at the bottom of this page that I
earlier claimed was a mere repost of a "someone else's schematic"".

Do you always wear blinders?
 
On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 15:42:48 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.terrell@earthlink.net> Gave us:

And you are too damn stupid to recognize the component as a
oscillator module. The "U" designator is used this way by a lot of
manufacturers since it is not a crystal, and at the design level it is
just another chip.

PLONK!
Click to expand...
If the retarded twit can critique someone else's spelling, he can
handle being called on not designating the crystal (and yes it's a
crystal) correctly.

You retarded plonk boy. Wrangle that.
 
I have peeked in upon this thread from time to time from ints inception. It
seems so out of the EE mainstream that it is breeding mosquitos.

Bill
 
On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 19:29:10 GMT, TokaMundo <TokaMundo@weedizgood.org>
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 15:42:48 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> Gave us:

And you are too damn stupid to recognize the component as a
oscillator module. The "U" designator is used this way by a lot of
manufacturers since it is not a crystal, and at the design level it is
just another chip.

PLONK!

If the retarded twit can critique someone else's spelling, he can
handle being called on not designating the crystal (and yes it's a
crystal) correctly.
Click to expand...
---
Oh, my, the little cunt's got her knickers in a bunch for being pegged
as too fucking stupid to know a crystal from a crystal oscillator and
now she's going to be insufferably rude until she gets over her fit of
pique!

No, you stupid twat, it _isn't_ a crystal, it's a crystal
_oscillator_.

If it was a crystal it would look something like this:


+--------------------
|
|
| OSC IN OSC OUT
+---+----------+-----
| |
+---[R1]---+
| |
| [R2]
| |
+---[Y1]---+
| |
[C1] [C2]
| |
GND GND

Where Y1 would be the crystal, as I explained in an earlier post.

But you don't want to hear about that, do you? No, you'd rather yell
and scream and stamp your little feet over nothing.

--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer
 
On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 19:26:13 GMT, TokaMundo <TokaMundo@weedizgood.org>
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 10:41:36 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> Gave us:


So what it basically boils down to is that _you_, dear boy, can't tell
the difference between a crystal and a clock oscillator.

No. It "boils down" to the fact that YOU do not know how to
designate components on a schematic.

They ARE supposed to be easily interpreted, not your "I don't give a
crap, as long as my moniker is at the bottom of this page that I
earlier claimed was a mere repost of a "someone else's schematic"".

Do you always wear blinders?
Click to expand...
---
Hey, asshole, I'm not the one having problems figuring out the
difference between a crystal and a crystal oscillator, and _you_ seem
to be the one with a serious tunnel vision problem which excludes the
possibility of your being wrong.

Plus, you're just as full of shit about the "someone else's schematic"
as you are about all the rest of the crap you post.

You must be _really_ stupid if you think you're going to pull that one
off, but if you want to try, let's see the message ID of the post
you're referring to, OK?


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top