Toshiba TV29C90 problem; Image fades to black...

[kony]

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 02:49:15 +0100, Conor
<conor.turton@gmail.com> wrote:

In article <7LFNe.9962$p%3.38610@typhoon.sonic.net>, SMS says...

It is probable that the motherboard company changed one of the inner
layers of the board (the power layer) on the board in question, to
eliminate the need for a jumper, or a copper trace, on the top or bottom
layer. Installing a jumper, or cutting a trace, is as expensive as
putting in a fuse.

snip

Kony, despite two of us now saying the same thing, will claim he is
right.

You offer a general theory on how it would be possible to do
it. That theory is of course obvious (that is, "possible in
theory so long as we only consider that detail) to anyone
who knows about multi-layer boards, BUT you are ignoring a
few things.

1) We have no, zero, evidence that _ANY_ motherboards do
this. Do you carefully examine modern motherboards? I
think not... LM&C, and I, do. "IF" this particular board
uses an inner layer to connect to the 5V rail and/or 5VSB,
this is the first evidence we have of it, evidence meaning
an actual board that does so... or at least nobody has
observed and/or mentioned it.

2) I continue to question the idea of implementation of the
surface-mount jumpers or fuses as optional based on using
one board layout for multiple featured (or zoned) products.
It is questioned because to implement the fuse ever (else it
would not be layed out on the board at all) the inner layer
cannot be connected in that implementation. Therefore, when
some boards used the fuse, they would have a more laborous
modification needed, to rework the inner layer before
fabbing the PCB rather than choosing which surface-mount
pads to populate.

You can't have it both ways, if the inner layer trace(s)
suppy power then there is no purpose to surface-mount pads
at all, they are a complete waste of space and never
useable, UNLESS they reworked the inner layer every time. I
don't think they do that, but again I'll welcome any real
evidence of it rather than some theory that it "could be
done" without consideration of whether it ever is.

There is still another possiblity, that the board can
accomodate other I/O ports/features, that the missing
fuses/jumpers do not actually serve to supply the ports that
are implmented on this specimen of the board, nor do the
ports on the board have inner layer traces, but that the
ports on the board ALSO have surface-layer traces suppling
power, yet another 5V supply line for them.

 

[NRen2k5]

I have trouble believing that there is such a law or that if there is, that there are no limitations. Such a law would clearly make "Tazers" illegal.

- NRen2k5

On 8/21/2005 10:47:16 AM, Tom MacIntyre wrote:

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 11:22:39 +1200, "Ben Dover" <BD@bd.net> wrote:



http://www.jaycar.com.au/productResults.asp?form=SPECIAL&SPECIAL=SPEC

SHOCKING LIE DETECTOR
SHOCKING SHOOTING GAME
SHOCKING BATTLE TANKS

It seems to be in the deregulated country we live in, people have forgotten
"it has been illegal to give anyone else a electrical shock"



Electric shock therapy is illegal? Where?

Tom

 

[kony]

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 02:48:14 +0100, Conor
<conor.turton@gmail.com> wrote:

In article <hr4eg1h4b03rjj94hu9105q570mmh56bmb@4ax.com>, kony says...

You would do to stop pretending you have vast knowledge and
gain some ACTUAL hands-on experiece with motherboards.

I had hands on experience of multilayered PCBs back in 1987 working as
an engineer in the video games repair industry.

Good for you, now would you feel it's reasonable for anyone
else to insist that they "know" for certain how one of those
1987 PCBs was designed based on their observation of a
modern PC motherboard, when every single board you've ever
seen from '87 was NOT like that "anyone" insists they are?

Generaly theory that multiple layers can allow a trace not
seen, is not evidence that this IS how and why LM&C observed
what he did.

AT
least then you'd have a slight hint at what's being
discussed and the significance of it.

I have. More than you it would seem.

Again you fail to grasp the obvious... that you would have
to actually examine modern motherboards to have any
applicable evidence. A theory about what "could" be, is not
the same thing as evidence of it actually being true.

Please take the hint that the problem is not our lack of
understanding very basic circuit board concepts but yours in
not realizing what is normally seen on motherboards.

I know exactly what is normally seen. I also know that some functions
have ended up being integrated into ICs themselves. As well as that, my
background comes from an industry which routinely scrubbed numbers off
chips and also misnumbered them to prevent piracy.

No, you clearly have no clue about what is normally seen.
Look on the motherboard in the system you're using RIGHT
NOW. Dig a few dozen out of a closet and look at them.
Look online at good pictures. Your "opinion" is worth
little if it is not consistent with actual boards.

Would you agree than when the surface-layer's pads ARE
populated with a fuse (or a jumper, inductor, 0-Ohm
resistor, or trace closing the two fuse pads) that it would
be pointless when there is also a parallel power trace in an
underlying layer? Certainly anyone with as much circuit
board experience as you claim would at least recongnize this
basic electrical fact, that one cannot fuse one of two
parallel supply lines and have the fuse be useful.
Therefore there is no point to having surface-mount pads
unless the inner layer is reworked.

Is this what you claim, that they redesign and remanufacture
boards with a different inner layer every time? That would
be quite the opposite of this "universal" board concept you
claimed where they can use one board with ommision of some
surface-mount components based on need.

Some grand (but simplistic) thought about multiple layers
does not change the fact that no other boards that (we're)
aware of, use inner layers for port power. I welcome anyone
to come forward with examples of any boards that do.

Why wouldn't they?

For one, because they have them on the top layer. I've
already mentioned the issues surrounding parallel lines and
inner layer rework for supposed universal boards.

Further, if this board had an inner layer suppling (5V), it
would make the 5V traces, fuse pads on top completely
worthless and just a waste of space to put on the board at
all... yet there they are.

So they're there. SO FUCKING WHAT?

So you're not using evidence or any thorough evaluation of
whether your idea is reasonable, merely making a passing
comment about internal layers is just an educated guess...
but not all that educated because you are not using ANY
modern motherboards as examples, while there are absolutely
zero reports of any boards (thus far) that actually employ
what you're guessing they do.

I can show you 20 CB radios from one
manufacturers, all based on the same board layout. On each model, the
PCB is the same but the components differ with blanks being left for
unused sections.

You have fallen victim to a common human delusion, that if
someone has a lot of experience in something loosely
related, they suddenly become an expert on that other topic
too.

Yes, the PCB can have unused pads filled as needed. The
WHOLE point of doing this is to avoid having to rework the
circuit traces every time. If there are inner layers which
short parallel paths to those available on the top layer,
there is no point to having the top layer traces in ANY
implementation of features (or lack thereof).

 

[kony]

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 03:50:55 +0100, Conor
<conor.turton@gmail.com> wrote:

In article <ofRNe.1038$g47.701@trnddc07>, James Sweet says...

Regardless of your level or lack of knowledge, your attitude certainly
leaves much to be desired.

I guess you're not that old?

LOL.

So you're making the "I'm a cranky old fart" argument as a
defense?

 

[Sparex]

Franc Zabkar wrote:

On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 21:01:03 +0100, Conor <conor.turton@gmail.com> put
finger to keyboard and composed:

In article <1124391797.339580.15430@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
larry moe 'n curly says...

I realize that, but in this case I can't imagine why the manufacture
would vary the design because the fuses are for keyboard (and maybe
mouse), USB, and Ethernet, and this particular mobo doesn't seem to
have any missing features for these because it does allow wake on
keyboard/mouse/USB/Ethernet.

For that particular model.

What is it about the OP's post that you don't understand? He has
stated that all the motherboard's IO functions are operational. This
means that *all* devices are getting their power from the motherboard,
despite several fuse locations being unpopulated, ie *open*. So the
OP's question as to what function these missing fuses would have
performed is a valid and logical one.

And the answer it seems from me reading this entire series of rants and
logical converstaions is that the only function that would have served
is to allow the board to be Certified for use in a safty controled
enviroment. Otherwise there is probally no other function to the fuse..
there or not.. its all a matter of certification and that seems to be
all, unless I see the 95% similar model with the fuses in place, no
cert, and new features that the other didn't have due to a small change
of 1 fuse... i dont think there would be a point to attempt to find out
further.



------------------
Motherboards are like Orges, and Orges are like onions.. they both have
layers and the both can make your head hurt really bad....

 

[kony]

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 01:59:42 GMT, "James Sweet"
<jamessweet@hotmail.com> wrote:

In this case, maybe a certain country has different safety standards
that require the keyboard, mouse, etc. to be fused, so on the models
sent to that country they are fused, and the same model marketed in
other countries leaves the fuse out and maybe puts a cheaper jumper in
to save money on components.
In large quantities the fuse may cost a penny and a jumper may cost 1/10
of a penny. Over hundreds of thousands of boards it makes a difference.


It's reasonably common to design a board to accomodate two or more styles of
certain components so either can be used depending on which is most
available/least expensive at the time of manufacture.

True.

HOWEVER, it is not common for them to do so when it requires
reworking the inner layer. If they do not rework the inner
layer, there is no point to having these surface mount pads,
as the inner layer is always a closed (sub)circuit and
nothing done (whether open or closed, populated) with these
surface mount supply lines makes a difference.

For example one of the
boards made where I work had pads in place for two different package styles
of voltage regulator, the pads are wired in parallel but only one location
is stuffed with the part.

Agreed, that's quite true and common. It does not, however,
mean that inner layer traces are hardwired which would be
necessary if the upper layer pad population is entirely
optional... else as I mentioned briefly in another post,
there may be entirely separate traces for those features
actually implemented. Thus the key issue is whether these
empty, and presumed open circuit pads the OP observed are
actually those for supply to implemented features.

 

[Daniel Franklin]

["Followup-To:" header set to aus.electronics.]
Ben Dover wrote:

http://www.jaycar.com.au/productResults.asp?form=SPECIAL&SPECIAL=SPEC

SHOCKING LIE DETECTOR
SHOCKING SHOOTING GAME
SHOCKING BATTLE TANKS

It seems to be in the deregulated country we live in, people have forgotten
"it has been illegal to give anyone else a electrical shock"

Hmm, better ban electric fences and nylon carpets and cars then (damn this
dry weather!

- Daniel
--
*************************************************************************
* Daniel Franklin - Lecturer in Computer Engineering
* University of Wollongong, NSW, Australia * d.franklin at ieee.org
*************************************************************************

 

[mark jb]

I have trouble believing that there is such a law or that if there is, that
there are no limitations. Such a law would clearly make "Tazers" illegal.

actually, tasers are illegal in australia.
along with stabproof vests, bulletproof vests, mace, batons, chains, and
most other forms of self protection.
can't have anything offensive, can't have anything defensive.
-mark

 

[Terry Given]

mark jb wrote:

I have trouble believing that there is such a law or that if there is, that
there are no limitations. Such a law would clearly make "Tazers" illegal.


actually, tasers are illegal in australia.
along with stabproof vests, bulletproof vests, mace, batons, chains, and
most other forms of self protection.
can't have anything offensive, can't have anything defensive.
-mark

AIUI, ditto here in NZ. I can understand the illegality of weapons, but
stab- and bullet-proof vests should be legal.

nothing illegal about making a tazer-proof-vest though.

Now here is something weird. A few years back, Balisongs (butterfly
knives) were made illegal - apparently because they can be opened with
one hand (I have fond memories of the Palmerston North police dept.
giving my Balisong back, after recovering a load of gear an ex-flatmate
nicked).

But many modern pocketknives have a little attachment at right-angles to
the blade, allowing them to be opened with one hand. Go figure.


Cheers
Terry


Cheers
Terry

 

[mark jb]

AIUI, ditto here in NZ. I can understand the illegality of weapons, but
stab- and bullet-proof vests should be legal.

nothing illegal about making a tazer-proof-vest though.

Now here is something weird. A few years back, Balisongs (butterfly
knives) were made illegal - apparently because they can be opened with one
hand (I have fond memories of the Palmerston North police dept. giving my
Balisong back, after recovering a load of gear an ex-flatmate nicked).

But many modern pocketknives have a little attachment at right-angles to
the blade, allowing them to be opened with one hand. Go figure.

Yeah, I've got one myself.
Same old story applies though - you can buy it and take it home, but you can
never carry it on you, or risk a jail term. Seems we've regressed back to
the convict days - every man for himself and completely useless law
enforcement, unless they just don't like you, in which case you're fucked.

-mark

 

[David L. Jones]

mark jb wrote:

AIUI, ditto here in NZ. I can understand the illegality of weapons, but
stab- and bullet-proof vests should be legal.

nothing illegal about making a tazer-proof-vest though.

Now here is something weird. A few years back, Balisongs (butterfly
knives) were made illegal - apparently because they can be opened with one
hand (I have fond memories of the Palmerston North police dept. giving my
Balisong back, after recovering a load of gear an ex-flatmate nicked).

But many modern pocketknives have a little attachment at right-angles to
the blade, allowing them to be opened with one hand. Go figure.

Yeah, I've got one myself.
Same old story applies though - you can buy it and take it home, but you can
never carry it on you, or risk a jail term.

Actually, you can under several circumstances.

From what I remember reading when the new pocket knife laws came out
you allowed to carry one for the following purposes:

- Work
- Sport
- Religious
- Consumption of food (they gave peeling fruit as an example)
- Collecting

and maybe some other categories too.

I can always hit at least one of those categories any time of the day!

Dave

 

[mark jb]

Actually, you can under several circumstances.
From what I remember reading when the new pocket knife laws came out
you allowed to carry one for the following purposes:
- Work
- Sport
- Religious
- Consumption of food (they gave peeling fruit as an example)
- Collecting

Define religious? a lot of allah's people would consider stabbing a
westerner as religious as praying six times a day. Not to mention the
mormons - hate to think what would happen if they had guns.

-mark

 

[Conor]

In article <p6bhg11q2uhs8883i7ptdj43f5d474scu2@4ax.com>, kony says...

1) We have no, zero, evidence that _ANY_ motherboards do
this.

Nah - only years of examples of cost cutting in industry.

Do you carefully examine modern motherboards? I
think not... LM&C, and I, do. "IF" this particular board
uses an inner layer to connect to the 5V rail and/or 5VSB,
this is the first evidence we have of it, evidence meaning
an actual board that does so... or at least nobody has
observed and/or mentioned it.

You wouldn't even be able to tell.

2) I continue to question the idea of implementation of the
surface-mount jumpers or fuses as optional based on using
one board layout for multiple featured (or zoned) products.

Why? Industry standard practice.

It is questioned because to implement the fuse ever (else it
would not be layed out on the board at all) the inner layer
cannot be connected in that implementation.

Eh? And you're trying to tell ME that it can't be done? Clue: Design
feature 1 - solder runs through the holes connecting the layers.

--
Conor

If Pac-Man affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in darkened
rooms, munching magic pills and listening to repetitive electronic
music.

 

[Conor]

In article <g9chg19hm7jbeim6i1ethlcuhk4v2eiqjb@4ax.com>, kony says...

Good for you, now would you feel it's reasonable for anyone
else to insist that they "know" for certain how one of those
1987 PCBs was designed based on their observation of a
modern PC motherboard, when every single board you've ever
seen from '87 was NOT like that "anyone" insists they are?

Fuck sake. You are incredibly dense. THe same cost cutting techniques

used then are also used now.
you it would seem.

Again you fail to grasp the obvious... that you would have
to actually examine modern motherboards to have any
applicable evidence.

I don't need to. Its out ther in the interweb. Others have already done
it.

No, you clearly have no clue about what is normally seen.

I'm going to end this bullshit right here.

Sorry but unless you're a qualified electronics engineer with
experience of working to component level - which your stupid
statements clearly show you aren't - then your comments are worth
precisely fuck all.

Good day.

--
Conor

If Pac-Man affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in darkened
rooms, munching magic pills and listening to repetitive electronic
music.

 

[Kadaitcha Man]

Conor, <conor.turton@gmail.com>, the subcutaneous, pedantic bum-bailey, and
flusherman in charge of cleaning out the water mains, entreated:

I'm going to end this bullshit right here.

<hands coonertard a loaded Glock>

--
Doug Grant <DGVREIMAN@COMCAST.NET> wrote:

If you want to respond to my posts... then email me and
I will either allow you to do so or not.

 

[kony]

On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 11:39:23 +0100, Conor
<conor.turton@gmail.com> wrote:

It is questioned because to implement the fuse ever (else it
would not be layed out on the board at all) the inner layer
cannot be connected in that implementation.

Eh? And you're trying to tell ME that it can't be done? Clue: Design
feature 1 - solder runs through the holes connecting the layers.

I'm still waiting for even one example of this theory, being
implemented.

you're continuing to argue for a method of implementation
that requires more to implement. For the control of the
solder they'd have to make change... the whole point was to
NOT have to change the board at all, only the population of
the surfaces.

 

[kony]

On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 11:42:13 +0100, Conor
<conor.turton@gmail.com> wrote:

Again you fail to grasp the obvious... that you would have
to actually examine modern motherboards to have any
applicable evidence.

I don't need to. Its out ther in the interweb. Others have already done
it.

You really, really DO need to. You claim some vague theory
of something that is possible. Yes, if you ignore all the
details the designers faced then it may seem possible, but
so are other alternatives. Merely citing one thing that is
possible is in no way a proof that this is the particular
method used.

No, you clearly have no clue about what is normally seen.

I'm going to end this bullshit right here.

Sorry but unless you're a qualified electronics engineer with
experience of working to component level - which your stupid
statements clearly show you aren't - then your comments are worth
precisely fuck all.

Along with ego it takes a little REAL HANDS ON to know about
specific components. Some generalized theory just isn't
worth diddly if you have zero applicable examples. 1987
Pinball machines? LOL. Save your pennies and buy a few
motherboard to play with... and I mean play. Poke and
prode, test and torture. Get some hands-on then tell us
about the port power circuits.

 

[CBFalconer]

Conor wrote:

.... snip ...

Eh? And you're trying to tell ME that it can't be done? Clue: Design
feature 1 - solder runs through the holes connecting the layers.

I surely hope not. That would be a manufacturing nightmare.
That's what plated thru holes are for.

--
"If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use
the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on
"show options" at the top of the article, then click on the
"Reply" at the bottom of the article headers." - Keith Thompson

 

[kony]

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 00:13:23 GMT, CBFalconer
<cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote:

Conor wrote:

... snip ...

Eh? And you're trying to tell ME that it can't be done? Clue: Design
feature 1 - solder runs through the holes connecting the layers.

I surely hope not. That would be a manufacturing nightmare.
That's what plated thru holes are for.

He seems to be thinking of 1987 arcade game boards with
features big enough to drive a tank through, and if he
insists that (that) is how those old boards were made, I'll
take his word for it... but it's a sad state when someone
who hasn't even bothered to look at a modern motherboard
wanst to argue about how they know what's done on it.

 

[SMS]

kony wrote:

HOWEVER, it is not common for them to do so when it requires
reworking the inner layer. If they do not rework the inner
layer, there is no point to having these surface mount pads,
as the inner layer is always a closed (sub)circuit and
nothing done (whether open or closed, populated) with these
surface mount supply lines makes a difference.

Changes to the power and ground layers are much simpler than changes to
the signal layers. No need to change the masks for the signal layers
when you can just not populate some components.

It's hard to believe that building two different versions of a board is
more economical than just putting in a jumper or a fuse. But often the
board without the fuses has other differences. It will be made out of a
cheaper material as well. So it's no big deal to make a minor change to
the masks for the power or ground layer, in fact the change can be made
manually. But there is no reason to change the signal layer masks to
remove the pads for the fuse, or the silkscreen.