Toshiba TV29C90 problem; Image fades to black...

[robert casey]

Get a pair of wire cutters. Clip the link at each end so that there's no
danger of the ends touching again. Reassemble.


Usually, you can just bend the link back and forth a couple of times and
it will come off in its entirety.

It's designed to break off after a few bendings with a pair of
bigger needle nose pliers. Only do the hot side, leave the
link on the neutral side alone.

 

[James Sweet]

<badaczewski@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1119310343.607612.256760@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Yes, those of you that told me that I probably didn't break the link on
the hot side are correct! And yes I make sure to to turn off all
breakers powering the room before working on the receptacle. Folks, I
hope there is some science a neat way to break the connection on the
hot side(red, black side in my case...also the brass screw side). I'm
going to do some research about breaking this link before I do it. But
if anyone has any experience breaking the link on a standard duplex
Leviton receptacle I would love some pointers. I updated my diagram to
illustrate what I believe you all recommend I do.

http://www.strangemedia.net/receptacle.gif

You just grab it with a pair of pliars and flex it until it breaks off,
there's no real trick to it.

 

[fish*man]

CRaSH Wrote:

Statement:
1 fuse: $1.00
Knowing what it is, where it is, and what to do with it, plus checking
associated circuitry: $99.00

Total due $100.00

Maybe god should have told him the fuse was blown instead.............

fuse: $1
knowledge: $99
using "god" and "blown" in the same sentence: priceless!

for everything else...

OK, I apologize. You're right, this forum should stick to electronics
repair.
ADMIN!...


--
fish*man

 

[ehsjr]

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

ehsjr <ehsjr@bellatlantic.net> wrote:

cs_posting@hotmail.com wrote:

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


That's about the same as pointing out that some capacitors
are polarity sensitive, and will effectively be a short
if the polarity is wrong. It's true, but does not enter
into the problem at this point.


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.
An inductance - a specific element we both referred to as L -
will not
saturate.

You mentioned the behavior of L and C, which refers to the


Inductors saturate. Inductance doesn't.

Behavior refers to the way the component performs.
Inductance as a property - see the definition, #1 - does not
perform or saturate. Inductance as a component - see the
definition, #2 - performs, and can saturate.

<snip>

What I referred to is a circuit element that can saturate, as per
the definition for inductance.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=inductance
"1. The property of an electric circuit by which an
electromotive force is induced in it as the result of a changing
magnetic flux.
2. A circuit element, typically a conducting coil, in which
electromotive force is generated by electromagnetic induction."


A circuit element, not a component device.

Try reading the definition, where it says "typically a conducting
coil". What circuit element do you have in mind that is not a
component but in which electromotive force is generated by
electromagnetic induction?

<snip>

But saturation has nothing to do with the inductance.

Huh? The inductance of a coil lowers as the current through
it drives it into saturation.

<snip>

After the

right inductance is calculated, then a specific device has to be
chosen, and *that* is when saturation has to be considered. So
do physical size, mounting style, insulation, and perhaps other
parameters too, none of which are related to the original
"inductance" problem.


Very specifically for the op's question,
the possibility of saturation *must* be considered, even though
the question did not include the word inductor. I think those
rules, or whatever you call them, are not correct.


Could be! I don't remember the OP's question...

Maybe you should re-read it.

Ed

 

[ehsjr]

cs_posting@hotmail.com wrote:

ehsjr wrote:

cs_posting@hotmail.com wrote:


You mentioned the behavior of L and C, which refers to the
way the *component* represented by C and the *component*
represented by L react.


The only components which can be represented by a single parameter L or
C are ideal components, which will always have exactly that value.
They can't saturate, because their value is mathematically constant.
Though you probably can't buy them at digi-key ;-) Compents that you
can buy cannot be represented by a single constant parameter, though
you may be able to approximate them as such for a useful range of
operation.

The discussion has nothing to do with ideal components.
L - inductance - definition 1 (the property) - exists in the world
L - inductance - definition 2 (the circuit element, typically a coil)
can exist in an electronic circuit.
L - inductance - the value we use in circuit analysis - can change
in some cases, as DC current through the component having the
property L increases until the component is saturated.

What I referred to is a circuit element that can saturate, as per
the definition for inductance.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=inductance
"1. The property of an electric circuit by which an electromotive
force is induced in it as the result of a changing magnetic flux.
2. A circuit element, typically a conducting coil, in which
electromotive force is generated by electromagnetic induction."


Not sure about this, but can the air-core inductor you just descrived
saturate?

I can't take credit for describin it - I just pasted in the definition.
The definition does not specify that the coil has no core, so it
could be one with a core or one without a core.

Or is it primarily a funtion of a core material like iron or

ferrite saturating?

I assume that is correct. Saturation, as far as I know, is not
a factor with an air-core inductor. I can't say an air-core
inductor will *never* saturate - I don't know.

Ed

 

[Kevin Aylward]

ehsjr wrote:

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.
An inductance - a specific element we both referred to as L -
will not
saturate.

You mentioned the behavior of L and C, which refers to the


Inductors saturate. Inductance doesn't.

Behavior refers to the way the component performs.
Inductance as a property - see the definition, #1 - does not
perform or saturate. Inductance as a component - see the
definition, #2 - performs, and can saturate.

snip

Since Floyd was referring to a definition of inductance as a property
not as a circuit element, his statement is indeed correct. Introducing
*another* alternative definition doesn't change what the statement was
actually referring to. It just complicates things by having to introduce
another word for the property of inductance to distinguish it from a
circuit element sometimes referred to as "inductance". Your trying to
win an argument by slight of hand, i.e. changing word meanings on the
fly.

What I referred to is a circuit element that can saturate, as per
the definition for inductance.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=inductance
"1. The property of an electric circuit by which an
electromotive force is induced in it as the result of a changing
magnetic flux.
2. A circuit element, typically a conducting coil, in which
electromotive force is generated by electromagnetic induction."

My view is that the dictionary is misleading. This seems to be a case
where English has been replaced by common, but poor use of it.

While I agree, that the phrases such as "the circuit contains a
capacitor and an inductance" are used, I have always considered this to
be sloppy English.

A little search on "definition of inductance" came up with

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/inductance%20unit

http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Inductance

http://www.wordreference.com/definition/inductance

http://www.allwords.com/word-inductance.html

None of which refer to inductance as a circuit element. Sure, some other
references have the two definitions, but its still poor style by my
book. One needs to distinguish between the circuit element itself
(inductor) and its properties (inductance). Using the same word for
both, is confusing.

My view is that dictionaries just get confused up when they try to
include technical terms. If you look in just about any technical/physics
reference, inductance is defined simply as a *property* of a component
named an inductor.

Like, if we say "there is a capacitance in the circuit", when we are
referring to the capacitor itself, it just sounds like the person is an
amateur. Its almost as bad as "current flow".

So, as far as making oneself clearly understood in electrical
engineering, one should, restrict to terms such as capacitors having
capacitance and inductors having inductance. This discussion itself is
proof enogh why this should be the case.

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.

 

[James254]

<dkuhajda@locl.net> wrote in message
news:1119319026.100988.26370@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

I presume you need it for a JVC? You really need to order the
modification kit that comes with it from JVC if you want a long term
repair. There is a reason the part is on backorder an out of stock
from every supplier. It is failing en-mass in certain models due to a
design flaw.
/\/\/\/\/\/\

Hi,

Can you fill us all in on what the design flaw is?

Is it related to the IC or something else.

There seem's to be a number of second sources that are out of the IC...

 

[Mark D. Zacharias]

jango2 wrote:

Hi ,
Got this dv-355 with no functions or display. The power supply is'nt
dead, but i suspect voltages are lower than they ought to be.
I'd be obliged if someone posted the actual voltages available at
connector CN2 of the ps (13 pins).A lil note detailing which pin is
pwr cntrl would be helpful too. I get 6 volts at pin 1 which i think
should be 12 ( motor drive +B ?) My negative filament voltages
measure upto -18 , shouldnt that be -28? .

Thanks in advance.
cheers!

And this would be a DV-355 ....... WHAT????

I assume a dvd player, but what brand, for gosh sake?

Mark Z.

 

[Mike Berger]

You can shine a light through it and determine whether it's
the backlight or lcd itself that's blanked.

hicks@bigmailbox.net wrote:

Hi,

I recently bought a Dell 19" tft monitor. I noticed after using it for
a while it would periodically blank for several seconds, then return to
normal. This weekend however, it blanked and the only way to resolve it
was to switch off the monitor for 20 minutes. It did this 3 times on
Saturday. When it does this, the monitor is still receiving a signal
from the PC, but the screen is completely black.
Any ideas what could be causing the problem here? As it's intermittent,
I want to avoid sending it back to the supplier, only for them to say
they can't reproduce the problem. Are there any diagnostics I can run
on the monitor myself?

Thanks.
Andrew.

 

[mistermaniac]

hicks@bigmailbox.net Wrote:

Hi,

I recently bought a Dell 19" tft monitor. I noticed after using it for
a while it would periodically blank for several seconds, then return
to
normal. This weekend however, it blanked and the only way to resolve
it
was to switch off the monitor for 20 minutes. It did this 3 times on
Saturday. When it does this, the monitor is still receiving a signal
from the PC, but the screen is completely black.
Any ideas what could be causing the problem here? As it's
intermittent,
I want to avoid sending it back to the supplier, only for them to say
they can't reproduce the problem. Are there any diagnostics I can run
on the monitor myself?

Thanks.
Andrew.

When the screen goes blank, shine to it with a lamp or so, can you see
the picture very dark?


--
mistermaniac

 

[kip]

Fil voltages in a DVD player ...Hummm!!!!
"Mark D. Zacharias" <spammenot@nonsense.net> wrote in message
news:svTte.362$5w3.73@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...

jango2 wrote:
Hi ,
Got this dv-355 with no functions or display. The power supply is'nt
dead, but i suspect voltages are lower than they ought to be.
I'd be obliged if someone posted the actual voltages available at
connector CN2 of the ps (13 pins).A lil note detailing which pin is
pwr cntrl would be helpful too. I get 6 volts at pin 1 which i think
should be 12 ( motor drive +B ?) My negative filament voltages
measure upto -18 , shouldnt that be -28? .

Thanks in advance.
cheers!

And this would be a DV-355 ....... WHAT????

I assume a dvd player, but what brand, for gosh sake?

Mark Z.

 

[NSM]

"Xiongnu" <xiongnu@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1119328513.367389.40800@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

hi, all


my air bed's electric air pump doesn't hold a charge anymore - after
several times of usage.

i took the pump apart and looked inside, there's four cylindrical
rechargeable batteries attached with the innner case, it seems these
batteries can be switched out for replacement. the air pump is generic
one, comes with my air bed, anyone knows where can i get rechargeable
batteries for replacement?

allelectronics.com

N

 

[dig154]

You might give "CA" adhesive a try. It's found in hobby shops and is the
glue of choice for model builders. Awesome stuff.

"Larry C" <lgchristianson@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1119352567.301336.54060@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Hi All,
Have the rubber skin coming loose on my digital camera and wondering if
anyone knows what adhesive they use to re-apply it.

 

[NSM]

<darrin_p_s@att.net> wrote in message
news:1119402145.812646.51230@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

My 12 year old Maytag (Model LAT8034AAE) just stopped working. It
filled with water and then stopped. The timer does not advance but the
light comes on. I replaced the timer less than a year ago (different
symptom then).

So, it is full of water, and no matter what I do it will not turn on
although the light does stay on even when the lid is in the upright
position.

If it stopped filling the level switch is probably OK. I'd still be looking
at the timer.

N

 

[ehsjr]

Kevin Aylward wrote:

ehsjr wrote:


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.
An inductance - a specific element we both referred to as L -
will not
saturate.

You mentioned the behavior of L and C, which refers to the


Inductors saturate. Inductance doesn't.

Behavior refers to the way the component performs.
Inductance as a property - see the definition, #1 - does not
perform or saturate. Inductance as a component - see the
definition, #2 - performs, and can saturate.

snip


Since Floyd was referring to a definition of inductance as a property
not as a circuit element, his statement is indeed correct. Introducing
*another* alternative definition doesn't change what the statement was
actually referring to. It just complicates things by having to introduce
another word for the property of inductance to distinguish it from a
circuit element sometimes referred to as "inductance". Your trying to
win an argument by slight of hand, i.e. changing word meanings on the
fly.

Had you not written the above, my response would be this paragraph:
Agreed - it is sloppy English (as you mention at the bottom of
your post) to use definitions that indicate that "inductance" is
both a property and a circuit element and to use the word
"inductance" to mean both simultaneously. It would be better to
state that one was talking about the component (if that's what he
was talking about) or the property, if that was what he meant.

As to trying to win the argument by slight of hand - and
changing the meaning of the word on the fly, what a crock!
I posted the definition "inductance" the first time I used
it in this discussion, and have been consistent throughout
in using it with reference to which part of the definition
applied. I don't give a s*** about winning an argument, but
I will not brook people telling me I meant something I did
not.

You are mistaken about this: " Introducing *another* alternative
definition". There was no other definition posted in this
discussion, prior to my post. I posted the first, and *only*
definition (prior to your post) in this discussion, and have
consistently talked about the component. And I stated why I
was talking about the component. The poster to whom I responded
initially attributed "behavior" to L. Inductance as a property
doesn't "behave", it simply exists. It is the component that
possesses the property of inductance that "behaves".

And if you want to talk about slight of hand, and changing
the meaning of words thereby, how about the first url you
posted below for the definition of "inductance"? It defines
"inductance unit" not "inductance". If you use that site to
define "inductance", you will see that it defines it as both
a property and a circuit element. Let me state clearly that
in my opinion it was not slight of hand on your part. I believe
it was an honest mistake. And I'll attribute your apparent
opinion that an "electrical device" in the definition found at
the third url site you posted does not count as a "circuit
element" to another mistake. That definition starts with:
"inductance
A noun
1 inductor, inductance
an electrical device that introduces inductance into
a circuit
"

If I misunderstand your opinion, and you do think that an
electrical device fits as a "circuit element" as used in the
definition of inductance I posted, then your statement further
down in your post "None of which refer to inductance as a circuit
element" is misleading.

It would be easy to call that "slight of hand". I would rather
think of those as mistakes with an innocent motive.

All this misses the point, which was the analysis of
an R,L,C load impedance in the presence of both a DC voltage
and an AC signal. The answer given seemed to indicate that
you analyze the circuit for AC and for DC separately.

If you don't consider saturation, your analysis could be wrong.
Neither the AC signal by itself, nor the DC voltage by itself,
might cause a current at or over the saturation point, if
there is one. But combined, the possibility exists that
saturation might occur. The DC voltage alone might cause
a current at or over Isat, while the AC signal might result in
currents below Isat. The point being that when analyzing
the circuit in the presence of an AC signal, you must
at the same time consider the DC voltage. Separate analysis
could result in the wrong answer.

Ed

What I referred to is a circuit element that can saturate, as per
the definition for inductance.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=inductance
"1. The property of an electric circuit by which an
electromotive force is induced in it as the result of a changing
magnetic flux.
2. A circuit element, typically a conducting coil, in which
electromotive force is generated by electromagnetic induction."



My view is that the dictionary is misleading. This seems to be a case
where English has been replaced by common, but poor use of it.

While I agree, that the phrases such as "the circuit contains a
capacitor and an inductance" are used, I have always considered this to
be sloppy English.

A little search on "definition of inductance" came up with

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/inductance%20unit

http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Inductance

http://www.wordreference.com/definition/inductance

http://www.allwords.com/word-inductance.html

None of which refer to inductance as a circuit element. Sure, some other
references have the two definitions, but its still poor style by my
book. One needs to distinguish between the circuit element itself
(inductor) and its properties (inductance). Using the same word for
both, is confusing.

My view is that dictionaries just get confused up when they try to
include technical terms. If you look in just about any technical/physics
reference, inductance is defined simply as a *property* of a component
named an inductor.

Like, if we say "there is a capacitance in the circuit", when we are
referring to the capacitor itself, it just sounds like the person is an
amateur. Its almost as bad as "current flow".

So, as far as making oneself clearly understood in electrical
engineering, one should, restrict to terms such as capacitors having
capacitance and inductors having inductance. This discussion itself is
proof enogh why this should be the case.

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.

 

[Cobalt]

What kind of past history before the fail? Lightning, dropped, in storage
for years or found it in the dumpster?

You could have bad solder on the main CPU chip....or even on the display,
especially if there are signs of a liquid spill. Try flexing or vibrating
the board for possible intermittents. Can also try powering up the unit
while holding the send key, or other keys in hopes it does a system reset,
in case something got corrupted. Sometimes there is a battery too that is
soldered in and can cause loss of cpu operations.


<michael.w.appenzeller@lmco.com> wrote in message
news:1119402330.265587.65370@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
|I need a service manual or at least schematic for the main board
| of a Toshiba 3450 Fax machine.
|
| Not available from Tritronics, Herman's, or Vance-Baldwin -
| apparently Faxes are made by a different division of Toshiba than
| their A/V stuff. The model was not listed on any of the on-line fax
| parts dealers I tried. Calling Toshiba directly, I just got the
| runaround, just being told to call different numbers - no one
| actually said they didn't have the manual - just didn't have a clue
| as to how to get it. I have a collection of 8 or 9 different
| phone numbers I was passed around to over a 2 day period.
|
| Problem with the machine is it's basically dead. Thought it would
| be a simple power supply problem, ESR'd the caps in the PS, found
| an open 0.33 uF electrolytic, replaced with three 0.1s. Machine
| still dead, but have +5, +/-12, and +24 volts from PS. One output
| is relay switched, and never turns on. I don't know if there
| should be any additional output voltages from the PS. Have clocks
| and data activity on the uP (Z8002), but nothing on LCD except a
| faint row of blocks on the top line of the display, no other signs
| of life.
|
| Mike
| WB2ME
|

 

[NSM]

<darrin_p_s@att.net> wrote in message
news:1119405075.109491.316040@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Thanks for the reply.

When I said switch I was thinking lid switch, not the level switch as
someone on another forum reported a similar problem to mine that ended
up being the lid switch.

I just took the thing apart, and the fuse is OK, but the lid switch
could be bad I THINK!

Could be. Something is stopping the timer from proceeding on.

N

 

[Rheilly Phoull]

One day NSM got dressed and committed to text

darrin_p_s@att.net> wrote in message
news:1119405075.109491.316040@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Thanks for the reply.

When I said switch I was thinking lid switch, not the level switch as
someone on another forum reported a similar problem to mine that
ended up being the lid switch.

I just took the thing apart, and the fuse is OK, but the lid switch
could be bad I THINK!

Could be. Something is stopping the timer from proceeding on.

N

Hmmm, a lot of washers dont use the lid interlock during the 'fill' cycle
only during 'spin'. I second the timer.

--
Regards ..... Rheilly Phoull

 

[truegridtz]

<shoppa@trailing-edge.com> wrote in message
news:1119273300.242730.68970@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

I'm looking at some resistors in a old piece of mil-spec equipment and
I think that they're supposed to be fusible (e.g. fail open, not
shorted). They look like metal film 1/2W resistors, body is painted a
bluish gray, and are marked, for example, red-purple-gold-gold-white.
It seems to be a 2.7 ohm 5% resistor. Am I correct that the last
(white) stripe indicates that they are fusible? Or is this some
mil-spec quality stripe?

Tim, this appears to be a mil-spec designator for solderable leads on a RL20
(mil-r-22684) 1/2 watt metal film. They are very good resistors. This
milspec was superceeded by RLR (mil-r-39017) which is the same part, but put
through a tighter quality control. Mark

Tim.

 

[Kevin Aylward]

ehsjr wrote:

Kevin Aylward wrote:


All this misses the point, which was the analysis of
an R,L,C load impedance in the presence of both a DC voltage
and an AC signal. The answer given seemed to indicate that
you analyze the circuit for AC and for DC separately.

One does. However, this doesn't meant that one completely ignores DC
conditions on component parameter values.

The issue here is one of the context of the claim.

If you don't consider saturation, your analysis could be wrong.
Neither the AC signal by itself, nor the DC voltage by itself,
might cause a current at or over the saturation point, if
there is one. But combined, the possibility exists that
saturation might occur. The DC voltage alone might cause
a current at or over Isat, while the AC signal might result in
currents below Isat. The point being that when analyzing
the circuit in the presence of an AC signal, you must
at the same time consider the DC voltage. Separate analysis
could result in the wrong answer.

But, this is out of context. When someone says that they are analysing
AC and DC separately, they don't *really* mean that they are completely
oblivious and are ignoring the fact that, e.g. an inductor might
saturate if it has a DC current through it. They simple mean that, for
the ac analysis the dc level is not relevant and take it as already read
that such analyses is performed with the *correct* value of inductance
for the inductor.

You are trying to claim that "ignoring DC for AC analyses" means
ignoring *all* aspects associated with the DC conditions on AC. This is
simply not a reasonable inference against those that understand
electrical design and analysis. People use phrasing that is usually
commonly understood. For example, one might use the same phrasing for a
transistor stage. That is, "ignore the DC conditions and calculate AC
separately". Of course, *literally* this would be nonsense. One must use
the DC conditions to calculate, say gm, ro and the input resistance that
one uses for the AC calculations, as such parameters also depend on DC
collector current and voltage. However, once the DC operation conditions
have determined the small signal values, the DC values themselves can be
completly ignored. That is, DC itself has no effect on a small signal AC
analysis, it only has effect on the parameters used in such an analysis.

So, the phrase "no effect" us being used in two different contexts.

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.