Toshiba TV29C90 problem; Image fades to black...

On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 21:54:52 GMT, Ken Weitzel <kweitzel@shaw.ca>
wrote:

I'd strongly urge you to check before you install anything other than
the original incandescents. I'm very sure that most places we can't
change them without "breaking the law"

Take care.

Ken

And, what is the law?

Seems to me I see a lot of trucks with new LED signal/stop lights, and
I can get close enough to see no SAE imprimatur on them.

I have an interest in reducing my motorcycle's current usage - and
making myself more visible. LEDs can do it, but I wonder about the
legality (since the DOT has taken 30+ years to accept that halogen
lights are better than "sealed beams" and) I know LED's can make a
big difference in visibility. - seems to me it is just a matter of
waiting (should I live that long) untill the LED lobbyists pay more
than the incandescent lobbyists. And we, the people, might be able to
choose.

I think the bottom line is safety. LED's can do it better than
incandescents - but not in a cost competive way (if one happens to be
a detroit mogul) so, we have to wait until Detroit allows us this
safety feature . . .

Sealed beams were a great improvement over polished silvered iron
reflectors - in the 30's- - and so the law was passed - - Halogen
lights came along in the 60/70s and could project more usable light
where it was needed and not cause glare to oncomming headlights - so
the Europeans had them and the US had to wait until General Electric
could develop halogen (sealed beam) headlights (that threw more light
up in the air than directly ahead). unitl the 80's

When GE got out of the market - auto lighting was more or less for
safety. But there's sitll the spector of some nanny lobbyist out
there to make us safe (in the corporatetly acceptible way).

"I'm very sure that most places we can't
change them without "breaking the law"

Me too.

Then I see celebrities breaking the law. and president's since Nixon,
and presidents circumventing the Consitution since I was born and I
have to wonder what good is the "rule of law?" It is a matter of what
I can get away with - not what is legal.

So how bad can LED lights be?

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

 

[BillW50]

"Anthony Fremont" <spam@anywhere.com> wrote in message news:dxb9f.36934$Bf7.35070@tornado.texas.rr.com...
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 22:10:17 GMT

"BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote in message
news:fa99f.528$p37.148@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...

"Anthony Fremont" <spam@anywhere.com> wrote in message
news:iM69f.33654$Bf7.13203@tornado.texas.rr.com...
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 16:45:02 GMT

"BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote in message
news:qF59f.482$p37.367@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...

"Anthony Fremont" <spam@anywhere.com> wrote in message
news:Yj29f.33575$Bf7.32821@tornado.texas.rr.com...
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 11:41:44 GMT

"BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote in message
news:v429f.441$p37.342@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...

"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:i3s4m1hrkf574e5p79inehev45bvon2uvt@4ax.com...
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 20:42:43 +0200

mark349@lycos.com writes:

OS/2 is dead and gone, and although it was superior in
design to the old versions of Windows, it was not
superior to NT.

Supposedly better in design, but OS/2 sucked in real life for
many of us! As only one OS/2 Win session had sound while the
others was soundless. And a good number of Windows
applications would routinely crashed under OS/2, but stable
as a rock under Windows 3.1. Then the OS/2 GUI was unstable
for at least a couple of years and crashed the whole system.
Then the FixPaks often caused more problems than they fixed.
IBM programmers are morons!

Am I the only guy that was working with this crap back then?

Nope!

IBM contracted with M$ to write OS/2 for them in like 1987.

It might have been in '86 actually. And MS had been working on
Windows since about '84. Although MS couldn't give the development
time it deserved because those MS programmers were mostly working
on OS/2. MS lost 3 years in Windows development because of OS/2.

I suppose that's one way to look at the time that M$ spent sucking
money from IBM and using it for their own gains.

IBM paid Microsoft by the K-line. Which means by the lines of code
they produced. IBM got the lines and MS got paid. Anytime MS didn't
produce code for OS/2, MS didn't get paid. So how could MS get paid
for their own gains by IBM? That's impossible.

No, it's not impossible. M$ got paid by IBM to write code for IBM.
They also were able to use much of the same exact code in Windows.

Well okay, you have me there.

M$ drug their feet on the release, while spending IBM's
money, so that they could get Win 3.0 out before OS/2, by
saying that OS/2 just wasn't stable enough for release
yet. Yeah, no conflict of interest their.

IBM only paid MS for the lines of code MS produced. IBM
didn't care if MS spent more time to make the code lean,
mean and faster. As IBM would

I think IBM had visions of stability that M$ will never attain,
ever.

pay you less if you did so. IBM was cutting their own throats. IBM
is full of a much of morons. Impossible to work with and to get
paid fairly for. Hell I would work slowly and drag my feet as well
for those morons.

Yeah, morons. They only own the mainframe market even though
Honeywell made better hardware. IBM's only moronic move was to
allow M$ to screw them for a second time. The first time being with
MSDOS/IBMDOS games.

Who screwed whom again? IBM only paid MS $80,000 for everything
(including DOS, Basic, etc.). And IBM paid no royalties to Microsoft
no matter how many copies IBM sold.

As far as I can remember, I've never heard that before so I need to see
a link to back that statement up. M$ had to pay $50,000 to Seattle
Computers just to buy the thing that they turned into DOS 1.0. How
could they have possibly done the whole job for $80,000 with no royalty
income? I'm sorry, I just can't buy that without some kind of proof.

Bob Cringely produced "Triumph of the Nerds" for PBS back in '96. It
was truly a great documentary. Cast of characters included were:

Robert X. Cringely...Himself (host/interviewer)
Douglas Adams...Himself (author)
Sam Albert...Himself (former IBM executive)
Paul Allen...Himself (co-founder, Microsoft)
Bill Atkinson...Himself (designer, Macintosh Development Team)
Steve Ballmer...Himself (vice-president, Microsoft)
Dan Bricklin...Himself (VisiCalc inventor)
David Bunnell...Himself (founder, PC World and Macworld magazines)
Rod Canion...Himself (co-founder, Compaq)
Jim Cannavino...Himself (former head, PC division, IBM)
Christine Comaford...Herself (CEO, Corporate Computing International)
Eddy Curry...Himself
Esther Dyson...Herself (computer industry analyst)
Larry Ellison...Himself (founder and president, Oracle)
Chris Espinosa...Himself (manager, Media Tools, Apple)
Gordon Eubanks...Himself (former head of language research, Digital Research)
Lee Felsenstein...Himself
Bob Frankston...Himself (VisiCalc programmer)
Bill Gates...Himself (co-founder, Microsoft)
Adele Goldberg...Herself (former Xerox PARC researcher; founder, PARC Place Systems)
Marv Goldschmitt...Himself
Andy Hertzfeld...Himself (designer, Macintosh Development Team)
Steve Jobs...Himself (co-founder, Apple Computer)
Gary Kildall...Himself (founder, Digital Research)
Joe Krause...Himself (president, Architext Software)
Bill Lowe...Himself (Head, IBM PC Development Team 1980)
Roger Melen...Himself
Bob Metcalfe...Himself (former Xerox PARC researcher; founder, 3Com)
Gordon Moore...Himself (co-founder, Intel)
Dana Muise...Himself (founder, Hypnovista)
Doug Muise...Himself (software designer)
Bill Murto...Himself (co-founder, Compaq)
Tim Patterson...Himself (programmer)
Vern Raburn...Himself (former vice-president, Microsoft; president, The Paul Allen Group)
Jeff Raikes...Himself (vice-president, Microsoft)
Jean Richardson...Herself (former VP, corporate communications, Microsoft)
Ed Roberts...Himself (founder, MITS)
Arthur Rock...Himself (venture capitalist)
Jack Sams...Himself (former IBM executive)
John Sculley...Himself (president, Apple Computer, 1983-1993)
Rich Seidner...Himself (former IBM programmer)
Charles Simonyi...Himself (chief programmer, Microsoft)
Sparky Sparks...Himself (former IBM executive)
Claude Stern...Himself (Silicon Valley attorney)
Bob Taylor...Himself (former head of computer science lab, Xerox PARC)
Larry Tesler...Himself (former Xerox PARC researcher; chief
scientist, Apple Computer)
Mark Van Haren...Himself (programmer, Architext Software)
John Warnock...Himself
Jim Warren...Himself (founder, West Coast Computer Faire 1978)
Steve Wozniak...Himself (co-founder, Apple Computer)

You can find the transcript at: http://www.pbs.org/nerds/

The quote of $80,000 is in Part 2:

Bill Gates: "The key to our...the structure of our deal was
that IBM had no control over...over our licensing to other
people. In a lesson on the computer industry in mainframes was
that er, over time, people built compatible machines or clones,
whatever term you want to use, and so really, the primary
upside on the deal we had with IBM, because they had a fixed
fee er, we got about $80,000 - we got some other money for some
special work we did er, but no royalty from them. And that's
the DOS and Basic as well. And so we were hoping a lot of other
people would come along and do compatible machines. We were
expecting that that would happen because we knew Intel wanted
to vend the chip to a lot more than just than just IBM and so
it was great when people did start showing up and ehm having an
interest in the licence."

http://www.pbs.org/nerds/part2.html

Finally IBM got fed up and took the project away from M$.

Yeah, IBM got fed up alright! As Microsoft didn't want to be a
slave to IBM (who always makes slaves or crushes anybody that gets
in their way

Too bad that isn't true since they would have done the world a great
favor by crushing M$.

Actually Bill Gates did the world a favor by saving all of us from
IBM. As nobody else was willing to do it. Including Gary Kildall.

IMO Kildall was 100 times the human being that B.G. could ever hope to
be. That's taking into consideration B.G.'s charity work.

Well I don't know if I would say that about pot head Kildall?
Getting into bar room fights and all.

up to this point in time). And IBM wanted MS to create OS/2 which
would be made to run on only true IBM PCs after they have the
world hooked on OS/2.

Yeah that is a great plan for us, NOT! Bill Gates had taken the
biggest risk in his career. As nobody ever bucked IBM and had
survived. Although he did it! And thank goodness he did! As we all
would be using real IBM machines and OS/2 by now.

Actually, if Gates wasn't so good at being greedy, we'd all be
using something that actually worked. OS/2 was crap too. Too bad
Xerox didn't have sense enough to stay in the game, they had the
best product for the office in 1980. Apple didn't have anything
that could come close for around 10 years. It took M$ almost
another 5 years on top of that to catch up.

Gates being greedy? Since IBM only paid Gates $80,000 for millions of
copies of DOS, Basic, Fortran, etc. So IBM *only* spent about a nickel
for all of the MS software per computer. So if anybody got ripped off,
it was Gates.

Like I said, I'll have to see something backing that up. M$ got plenty
for each and every copy of MS-DOS they FORCED onto OEMs.

Yes MS did make money from the clone market. But there was no clone
market when Gates and IBM made the deal.

And since you mentioned Xerox, those foolish Xerox executives gave
Steve Jobs all of Xerox's GUI secrets for nothing! That is right, NOTHING!
Then Apple has the balls to turn around a sue Microsoft for stealing
Apple's GUI, when Apple had stolen it from Xerox in the first place.
Yup, Xerox could have had it all and they (bozos in management) didn't
even know it.

They certainly had the right to intervene on the Apple vs. M$ battle for
"look and feel".

That battle cost both Apple and MS lots of money and nobody won. And
then Apple needed money and MS bailed them out. Go figure.

Sure IBM was ticked that Bill Gates wasn't going to play along. So
they parted ways. And IBM wouldn't sell any IBM computer with
Windows installed for a short time. Until IBM realized that they
couldn't sell IBM computers with either crappy PC-DOS or OS/2 on
them. As people wanted Windows instead, plain and simple.

The only reason being that M$ delayed OS/2 was so that Win 3.0
could get the jump on it. If OS/2 would have shipped on time, it
would have possibly eliminated windows.

Yes probably this is true. Although MS still would have gotten third
parties to write applications for Windows instead of OS/2. Which did

Right, nothing like ludicrous binding legal agreements to crush free
trade and capitalism.

Yeah well nobody put a gun to their heads to sign any agreements
either. And companies do this all of the time and I don't like these
agreements either. For example Coke gets stores, restaurants, etc. to
sell only their brand. So you can't throw stones at just Microsoft.

happen anyway. And IBM had the balls to threaten third parties to
write applications for OS/2, but wasn't willing to pay them to do so.
Well I wouldn't listen to big bully IBM either.

Who's the greedy bully now?

I don't know? Redhat? <grin>

There are very many suspicious similarities in "bugs" within the
graphics system calls of Win 3.0 and OS/2.

The same MS programmers wrote both OS/2 and Windows 3.0. So why
should this be a surprise?

It's not a surprise to me. I think it just goes to show that M$ had
no qualms about directly lifting the code that they originally
wrote for IBM using IBM's money and, AFAICT, IBM's design goals.
I'm not saying that was illegal back then, but it certainly
wouldn't happen in today's IP obsessed world without bringing about
major court battles.

Here was a true visionary: http://www.cadigital.com/kildall.htm

Yes I know all about Gary Kildall! I was a big supporter of his until he
killed off CP/M without any warning! Then Gary had become a big creep to

And I thought DOS killed it with the "here have DOS free with your PC,
or send us money and we will send you CPM". Well that, 8" diskette
drive issue and the fact that CPM was limited to using 64K of RAM. I
could be wrong though.

No you got it close enough. But lots of folks just purchased and
supported CP/M. But one day Gary said we are not doing CP/M anymore
because we lost interest. That wasn't right! Take their money and
then refuse support. I'm sure that was totally illegal.

me and other developers. Later I learned he often screwed his other
customers left and right as well. SCP was one company that he burned
badly. Luckily it burned him in his ass, now didn't it?

Given that you feel that way about the insignificant "damage" that
Kildall did, how can you be so bubbly when talking about M$ and their
"success"?

Because when I added it all up and all the other companies who had
taken my money and then dropped support. Microsoft turned out to be
the cheapest bang for the buck. And it still is true today IMHO.

And talk about being greedy, Gary almost invented the word. As you had
to pay him big bucks to make him do anything. And it wouldn't be to
your

So what? He was good and he knew it. Are you saying that his efforts
weren't worth big bucks?

No... not really. But what I'm saying that Microsoft was cheaper. So
you can't ask for big bucks with competition.

liking, but his. And while Gary Kildall and Bill Gates were playing
around with DEC computers. I was working on the VTAS computer which
got the US to the moon. So as far as I was concern, both were
playing around with kids' stuff at the time.

I didn't start getting paid for tinkering with computers until 1980.
Before then it was me and my COSMAC ELF and whatever else I could get my
hands on. When the PC came along, I was already into mainframes so I
really didn't pay the PC any mind until pretty much the end of the 80's.
Once I had a mainframe to control, I could hardly treat any micro
seriously.

Well I was building my own PCs from scratch as a side hobby (as
being an EE). Although I never thought about selling the damn
things. But when others were mass producing them, I started buying
them instead of building my own.

BTW, I searched Google for VTAS computer and it seems that you are the
only person in the USENET archive that ever mentioned it. I also can't
find any links on the web either.

Well I know there was virtually nothing about it on the net. So I
had taken a peek and I found this (forgive the long and broken link
you will have to piece together).

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.military/browse_thread/
thread/c80a6dfb833506f0/7f48902fead1d2fa?lnk=st&q=VTAS+computer&rnum
=30&hl=en#7f48902fead1d2fa

Yes the VTAS computer was so great, they used it for military
purposes too like in the F4.

Now having said the above, I do admit that Gary was nothing less than
one great programmer without a doubt. Although everything had to be
done his way, or forget it. And that is why Gary did well without any
competitors, but failed once someone else was in the OS game.

That's the problem with genius, it usually doesn't come with greed and
"good business sense" attached.

You're right there.

Funny IBM also does well without competition, but also fails once
competition arrives. And oddly enough, Microsoft only gets better when

They seemed to do ok against Burroughs, Honeywell and the rest.

Isn't that like saying Apple does okay against the IBM clones?

there are competitors. Otherwise they basically just sit on their butt
doing nothing.

You obviously really like M$ so there probably isn't much point in
continuing this until it becomes a real pissing contest. I run
windos on some machines because I basically have to. When
I need something that really works, I use Linux.

I actually use Windows because it does work. Linux has way too many
lacks and wants to keep me happy. And did you know that Linus Torvalds
also uses Windows? Yup he said so right in his own book.

__________________________________________________
Bill (using a Toshiba 2595XDVD under Windows 2000)
-- written and edited within WordStar 5.0

 

w_tom wrote:

Let's not lose sight of why this discussion has gotten
here. Someone without sufficient knowledge declared that
application software and a weak OS structure could cause a
CMOS date time clock to lose time. Obviously not. Someone
has represented 1990 IBM as a decent, respectable, and
innnovative company. Obviously not. OS/2 is a symptom of how
bad IBM had become.

Proof that the biggest dick isn't in my pants. Read the frigging posts
and quit being a jackass. If you really knew anyting about PC operating
systems, you would know that the RTC on the motherboard is ONLY used
upon a reboot, and that the OS does its OWN timekeeping. Punks like
you, who just got a PC like two years ago, think that Windows reads the
MB clock on every time slice, which only shows that all you are is a
troll, with no knowledge of how things work.

A whole generation gave pukes like you computers and technology that
your kind could never reproduce, and you don't even take the time to
understand it.

Let's not loose track of that fact that windows, being unable to do
REAL prememptive multitasking, is also incapable of keeping accurate
time, for that very reason. Try not to listen when cornheads make dopey
statements like "write a tight running program, and if you can switch
to another one while it is running, then it is pre-emptively
multitasking" for surely, stupider words were never spoken on Usenet,
and that is saying a whole lot.

Only morons make statements about OS/2 when they can barely spell it,
have never used it, and would not know a quality piece of software if
they fell over it. It takes a real windows loving douche bag to
proclaim OS/2 as technically inferior, and ever stupider people to not
know that NT was originally OS/2.

What it takes tho, is reading, and research, instead of Public
(government) TV as the means for the information.

Here are your replies, even before you write them:

"Listen shithead, I have been involved with computers for over forty
years, and was on the internet before it was the internet. I was there
when Gates cut his own umbilical cord and started typing on a keyboard
before he was even toilet trained. I worked for IBM when they screwed
up OS/2 because everyone knows that IBM was the stupidest, lamest,
worst company in the history of the world....." and on and on with the
same stupid, lame, moronic comments about how you are the most skilled
person in usenet.

Usenet sucks, and so do the people who seem to need it in order to find
any kind of self esteem and purpose in their lives. Try going outside,
and doing something useful with life, instead of just being a ding dong
all day with a keyboard. Sex can help, but not just with yourself.

 

[James Sweet]

fybar wrote:

$85 US for putting a connector on a tuner?!?

Tom


Yes, the other shops are charging $50 to just look at it, and that $50 will
be applied to the repair. So, if I go that route I might only pay $50, but
I am betting once they get the $50 they will charge me another $50. Nobody
will quote me a price just to solder a connector on. I have to bring it in
and then they will quote me a price. I wonder why TV repair shops have
such a shady reputation?

fyb

They do that because way too many people waste their time, if they gave
free estimates they could easily spend all their time giving estimates,
none of those guys are getting rich.

 

[Steve TR]

Just for closure...

Here is a photo of one of the disassembled tail lamp sections.

http://216.110.197.146/taillamp.jpg

After poking around with a small LED flashlight and the clear inner fresnel
lens, I really think I need to purchase a handful of the round LED lamps you
suggested. One of those pre-fabbed tail lamps at the right spot on that
lens will make a LOT of light that is evenly dispersed.

Plus, it's all wired and already made to withstand the elements. I can pop
them in there, fill the old lamp socket holes with rubber grommets, and be
done.

Also, I never realized that the LEDs actually dimmed for tail versus brake
lights. I just thought there were just more or less of them illuminated as
needed.

So I'll give it a go with the standard round LED lamps you suggest are very
bright.

Thanks,
-Steve


"Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
newsine.GSO.4.63.0510292109080.3172@alumni.engin.umich.edu...

On Sat, 29 Oct 2005, Steve TR wrote:

http://216.110.197.146/led_design.gif

The drawing is not perfect and the device doesn't need to be exactly like
this, but just a flat panel around 3 to 4" high and roughly 6-10" long.

Your individual emitters designated as tail or brake: Wrong way to do it.
You really want all your emitters to be active in both modes. There are
readily available PWM circuits for the dim "tail" mode, and then you just
shoot full power to 'em for the bright brake/turn mode.

http://www.pmlights.com/products.cfm?cId=1&fId=57 (The one I'd recommend
is the 36-emitter unit P/N M417RP here:
http://www.pmlights.com/products.cfm?cId=1&fId=57&pId=1478 ) They're 4"
round, and you could simply line 'em up side by side by each, spaced about
3/4" or so away from the inner surface of the car's lenses. Dual-intensity
capability built right in, on all emitters, and these guys are BRIGHT.

To reduce the appearance of discrete circular areas of light, I'd obtain
some diamond-pattern fluorescent ceiling light diffuser material and place
a single thickness of it right up against the inner surface of the car's
lenses.

If you gotta have rectangular, there is an LED Model 45 from Truck-Lite.
3-13/32" by 5-5/16", P/N 45252R, e.g.
http://www.imperialinc.com/items.asp?item=0812540 (Truck-Lite's own site
is down at the moment).

These "full-pattern" items cram-packed with emitters are the better way to
go, compared to the units which use fewer emitters (5 to 8, typically)
with fresnel optics to spread the light.

(Sure, it can be fun to start from scratch using nothing more than
perfboard and raw LED emitters, but the optics make a real problem -- they
cannot effectively be crafted in your workshop -- and these modules are
inexpensive enough that you can pick 'em up, install 'em, and then move on
to other things.)

You will need a different turn signal flasher. I recommend an Ideal EL-12C
electronic heavy-duty plug-in flasher. Nice loud click, and it won't care
that the load has suddenly got a lot lighter. The stock flasher won't
work, because it is load-sensitive.

For your next trick:
http://www.danielsternlighting.com/tech/relays/relays.html and
http://www.danielsternlighting.com/products/csr.html

;-)

DS

 

[Ian Malcolm]

fybar wrote:

$85 US for putting a connector on a tuner?!?

Tom


Yes, the other shops are charging $50 to just look at it, and that $50 will
be applied to the repair. So, if I go that route I might only pay $50, but
I am betting once they get the $50 they will charge me another $50. Nobody
will quote me a price just to solder a connector on. I have to bring it in
and then they will quote me a price. I wonder why TV repair shops have
such a shady reputation?

fyb
THERE IS NO WAY IN HELL YOU WOULD EVER GET A REPAIR ESTIMATE FROM US

OVER THE PHONE. Your car breaks down, you phone a garage the other side
of town to get it fixed, do you expect to get a quote to fix it that
will be the same as what you actually pay? Some stuff I'll tell the
customer it isn't worth it ovet the phone though.

Drag it down the shop that asked you to bring it in and let them look at
it in front of you. Before they take the back off, ask at what point
does the $50 charge apply. They are probably concerned that if the
connector was yanked off the tuner the main board may well be cracked
around the tuner mountings. It would be worth it for you to find out
the replacement cost of the TV before walking into the repair shop.
DONT ask for home delivery & collection, you WILL pay extra for it in
the end.

We will normally inspect the damage visually and decide if its worth
booking in for repair IN FRONT OF THE CUSTOMER if the customer is
concerned that it may not be worth fixing. We INSIST on opening
anything that has either been dropped or purchaced shrinkwrapped off a
man with a white van so that the customer can see that we aren't
bulls**tting about the cost of fixing it or worse accuse us of trashing
it. I've seen TVs with the whole yoke and tube neck broken off and one
customer had just said, "There can't be much wrong, It sounds OK. I
just want you to put a new lamp in it." Its also funny how the TV with
2 bricks in instead of a circuit board was "working fine yesterday and
just went off".

P.S. I hope the shop doesn't read sci.electronics.repair and connect you
with this discussion. Noone likes being told they are a ripoff before
any money has changed hands :-( As to our reputation as a trade, when
was the last time you hired a plumber? There are a lot of us over here
leaving this trade for plumbing as the hours are better with PAID
overtime, better pay, more grateful customers and *far* less sh*t from
them ;-)

--
Ian Malcolm. London, ENGLAND. (NEWSGROUP REPLY PREFERRED)
ianm[at]the[dash]malcolms[dot]freeserve[dot]co[dot]uk [at]=@, [dash]=- &
[dot]=.
*Warning* SPAM TRAP set in header, Use email address in sig. if you must.

 

[NN]

The only point about rechargeable alkaline for me are the 1.5v instead
of the 1.2v rechargeables which do not work in some devices. They
also don,t leave in the " dark " without any warning. I never got used
to it. I use portable lighting every night. Watch out for any
chinese type "D" cells wether brand name or not. I took one apart and
it had a "C" size suspended inside. I prefer to do my own D cells out
of C cells by using a white pvc pipe as a sleeve. There is one
situation that you can get the same voltage with the 1.2 volt cells.
I have a 4 cell D size mag that can take five c size in a pvc sleeve
for equal voltage.

 

[Bob Masta]

On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 15:52:20 +0100, Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@gmail.com>
wrote:

Bob Masta writes:

Interesting interview with Bill Gates on the whole OS/2 debacle in
PC Magazine, Nov 8, 2005 page 122-123.

What I find most interesting is that November 8 is still over a week
in the future.

Dang! THAT'S why the air was all swirly and sparkly when I
opened the cover... stuck in the TIme Warp!

Seriously, in case you haven't been paying attention for
the last several decades, magazines do this so that the
ones sold off the newsstand appear to be current, and
thus easier to sell, well past the actual printing date.
Not too interesting any more!


Bob Masta
dqatechATdaqartaDOTcom

D A Q A R T A
Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis
www.daqarta.com
Home of DaqGen, the FREEWARE signal generator

 

[Porky]

Tom wrote:

You'll likely require a technician to sort
this one for you, unless it has a documented history/magic bullet for
this problem. Looks like a dandy little amp...

Under that husky exterior rides the flimsiest of circuit boards,
suspended on the plastic jacks and control pots, which barely survives
the bus trip home. Components are known to drop off like leaves from
the trees.

marsupialman.1xo...@news.homeimprovementbanter.com -

I bought a new Vintager GM110 via eBay about a year ago. When the amp
is switched on and my guitar plugged in, there is no output noise When I switch the >amp off, there is about
one second of amplified noise (such as a chosen guitar chord), then
silence.

Take it to an electronics training school, or find an old ham radio guy
with lots of patience and good eyesight. I once found a capacitor
rolling around loose under the chassis of a similar beast, that made
the repair job pretty easy. BTW, just plugging the guitar into the
return jack of the FX loop should have made a sound if the problem was
isolated in the preamp. Not likely.

John Kogel

 

[default]

On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 08:34:33 GMT, "Rick Yerger" <nospam@earthlink.net>
wrote:

Our old apartment complex has ungrounded outlets. All 3-prong
appliances are connected with 3-to-2 adapters. Will this affect our
ability to use a PC power supply with Active PFC?

Sorry if this is a dumb question!


It wouldn't affect active power factor correction, but you would be

well advised to add a ground to your computer equipment for
electrostatic discharge protection.

There's a safety issue as well . . .
--

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

 

[Porky]

There was a movie made in the early 90"s starring the late John Ritter,
where he poisons his wife with old radio parts, and he is shown
scraping away at the deadly selenium rectifier. Marg Toggenberg (not)
of CSI fame plays the detective. I recommend a Google search of groups
for that one.

John K

 

[JANA]

You can use a ground lift adaptor. But, you should find a way to properly
ground your computer equipment. If not, your equipment will be sensitive to
have damage from being on a floating ground. There are also safety issues
when running this type of equipment without proper grounding.

--

JANA
_____


"Rick Yerger" <nospam@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:tGk9f.3901$Rl1.1896@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Our old apartment complex has ungrounded outlets. All 3-prong
appliances are connected with 3-to-2 adapters. Will this affect our
ability to use a PC power supply with Active PFC?

Sorry if this is a dumb question!

 

[kip]

I do 2 a month on average in the home and it costs
about 95.00cdn and nobody has complained yet.
RCA being the most common broken one,s
kip.

Been in this buisness for 38 yrs
and have NEVER given an estimate
over the phone NEVER.

Get a Life


"Ian Malcolm" <abuse@freeserveNOSPAM.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:Ma2dnRATwc5HQ_jeRVnyrA@pipex.net...

fybar wrote:
$85 US for putting a connector on a tuner?!?

Tom


Yes, the other shops are charging $50 to just look at it, and that $50
will be applied to the repair. So, if I go that route I might only pay
$50, but I am betting once they get the $50 they will charge me another
$50. Nobody will quote me a price just to solder a connector on. I have
to bring it in and then they will quote me a price. I wonder why TV
repair shops have such a shady reputation?

 

[Patrick Young]

James Sweet wrote:

The alignment may well be in the way the panels are made, hence the
different part numbers. If you'd like to verify, try installing a
different green panel and a red panel instead and see which one makes

Did, as the green in Q had three or four pixels out. I'm now left with a
ferpect picture, however the convergence is now out two ways. The part
# is therefore not part of the alignment.

the convergence change. If the panels are indeed identical then the
convergence is adjusted in software, if there's no service menu then
you'd need a custom alignment rig. Given the cost of a new blue panel is
probably prohibitive you haven't got much to loose, you may be able to
file the holes a bit larger and adjust the panel that way to make it
acceptable

I think I will do this. Setting up a test rig should not be
too hard as the normal state of them appears off. With the spare
parts/lense etc and a 250W mercury vapour lamp, should be able to
do it to something usable for TV viewing.

I've put in a call to see what the panels cost, if they are cheap I'll
make an effort to repair as many as I can.

Many thanks.

--

--------------------------------------------
4x4 Hilux Auto Service Centre,
BP 106 Timbuktu,
Mali (West Africa)
Tel: 292 91 52
Specialising in turbo diesel and R290 aircon

 

[poi]

Porky wrote:

Tom wrote:
You'll likely require a technician to sort
this one for you, unless it has a documented history/magic bullet for
this problem. Looks like a dandy little amp...

Under that husky exterior rides the flimsiest of circuit boards,
suspended on the plastic jacks and control pots, which barely survives
the bus trip home. Components are known to drop off like leaves from
the trees.

marsupialman.1xo...@news.homeimprovementbanter.com -

I bought a new Vintager GM110 via eBay about a year ago. When the amp
is switched on and my guitar plugged in, there is no output noise When I switch the >amp off, there is about
one second of amplified noise (such as a chosen guitar chord), then
silence.

Take it to an electronics training school, or find an old ham radio guy
with lots of patience and good eyesight. I once found a capacitor
rolling around loose under the chassis of a similar beast, that made
the repair job pretty easy. BTW, just plugging the guitar into the
return jack of the FX loop should have made a sound if the problem was
isolated in the preamp. Not likely.

John Kogel

 

[poi]

hey. i have the same amp with the same amp with the same problem. i got
it fixed but it broke again. i've had a lokk and i can't see where it
was repaired. i do have some info if any one can decipher what it might
mean;
1.there is power coming from the transformer
2.the speaker works
3.i cant see any thing missing inside
4. the only way to make noise is to turn it off and i get the fade-out.
with different settings the fade-out is different so the amp models
work.

 

[Mike Berger]

Because people diagnose problems themselves, and then are angry when
the service shop tells them it's more serious than a "loose connection"
or blown fuse. If somebody asks to have the vertical IC replaced, and
you do it and the TV doesn't work, do you think they'll walk away
satisfied and willing to pay the bill?

fybar wrote:

$85 US for putting a connector on a tuner?!?

Tom


Yes, the other shops are charging $50 to just look at it, and that $50 will
be applied to the repair. So, if I go that route I might only pay $50, but
I am betting once they get the $50 they will charge me another $50. Nobody
will quote me a price just to solder a connector on. I have to bring it in
and then they will quote me a price. I wonder why TV repair shops have
such a shady reputation?

fyb

 

[tempus fugit]

Tried the turining around the plug trick, but it made no difference. I also
disconnected the phono plug that connects the tone arm to the amp unit,
which also made no difference.

Here is something curious though. I accidentally touched my scope while my
hand was on the record player chassis and got a fairly good shock. The scope
has a 3 prong AC plug (the record player doesn't). I should've measured the
voltage difference between the sope chassis and the record player chassis,
but I didn't think to. I'll have to do that. Perhaps he chassis is live. I
didn't think this would be the case though, since there is a cap with the
negative connected to the case, as well as a few other green wires.

Thanks


"Asimov" <Asimov@-removethis-bbs.juxtaposition.dynip.com> wrote in message
news:MSGID_1=3a167=2f133.0_43612958@fidonet.org...
"tempus fugit" bravely wrote to "All" (27 Oct 05 11:17:42)
--- on the heady topic of "unit hums loudly regardless of volume"

tf> From: "tempus fugit" <toccata@no.spam.ciaccess.com>
tf> Xref: core-easynews sci.electronics.repair:346437

tf> Hey all;

tf> I'm trying to repair an old tube portable record player. When it is
tf> on, it hums really loud, regardless of the volume.

Have you tried turning the ac plug around?

Which way the plug is inserted matters with these. Let the record
player warm up, then insert the plug one way or the other, and then
paint a mark for which was the quietest way. One way: lots of hum, the
other: quiet hiss.

Those old tube units used to get B+ directly from the powerline (or
sometimes a voltage doubler) and used a large value resistor bypassed
by a 0.01uF to RF ground the tone arm shielding to neutral. The power
for the filaments often came from a secondary winding in the motor
coil. Don't use this type of record player near the bathtub. Lethal!

Another possibility is a broken wire at the cartridge.

A*s*i*m*o*v

.... Just a little force field zap.

 

[Mike Berger]

According to the web site, none of them actually do anything.
Apparently they just sit on the laptop keyboard and read out
random numbers. Don't waste your money.

Without a standard CPU bus, how would you build a diagnostic
card for laptops?

LPC2106 wrote:

I find this at

http://arm.web7days.com/notebook/

diagnostic card for notebook computer

 

[Jumpster Jiver]

Rick Yerger wrote:

Our old apartment complex has ungrounded outlets. All 3-prong
appliances are connected with 3-to-2 adapters. Will this affect our
ability to use a PC power supply with Active PFC?

Sorry if this is a dumb question!



Assuming you are in the USA - 120V

If the outlet box is made of metal, test if the box is grouded. You can
do this by buying one of those testers with three neon lamps at a
hardware store. Use a 3 to 2 adapter with the ground wire of the
adapter connected to the outlet-plate screw. If the tester shows that
the outlet box IS properly grounded, then all you need to do is use a
3-2 adapter and make sure the wire or tab from the adapter is securely
connected to the grounded screw of the wall box.
Also, if the box is properly grounded you can install a 3 prong outlet
in the box and connect the outlet ground to the box.

If there is truly no ground, you should have a serious talk with
building management about hiring an electrician to update the building's
electrical system. Otherwise there is a serious danger of electric
shock or electrocution if an appliance malfunctions. The ground is
there to protect you if an appliance's HOT wire shorts to the outer
cabinet or a contol knob or any other part you would normally touch.
While it is rare it DOES happen and that's why a ground is necessary.

MS