Toshiba TV29C90 problem; Image fades to black...

[John Del]

Subject: RCA EPROM QUESTION?
From: daveem@webtv.net (daveem Dave M)
Date: 7/9/03 1:31 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <16722-3F0C5183-39@storefull-2136.public.lawson.webtv.net

Hi all,
I was just wondering if any one here knows the general difference
between the various Eproms RCA and GE use in their television sets? I
know a tech who regularly replaces Eproms with RCA part numbers that
don't match the original part, and he said that some of the Eprom chips
are interchangeable, but I hate to gamble on this. Any help would be
appreciated. Thanks,
Dave

The basic rule is that if the new eeprom comes from a chassis that uses the
exact same uPc as is in the original chassis, the eeprom will work normally.
The only difference will be in the features\options available in the menus. If
you sub in an eeprom from a high end chassis that uses the same uPc as the
original, the TV will work and may offer upgraded features such as channel
labeling, speaker on\off, etc. If you sub backwards, the TV may be missing
features such as PIP, A\V inputs, stereo, or even experience geometry problems.

John Del
Wolcott, CT

"Nothing is so opportune for tyrants as a people tired of its liberty."
Alan Keyes

(remove S for email reply)

 

[Bill Jr]

You need to verify the operation of Q403.
In standby the base of Q403 should be near 7.2 volts, collector 11.3 volts
and the emitter 6.5 volts. With you meter on the emitter of Q403 try the
power button (on the remote or the keyboard) and see if it goes up to near 8
volts.
This 8 volts is needed to start the signal processor horizontal stage and
get the flyback up and running. Without the 8 volts you will have the
symptoms you describe.
This 8 volts alone won't guarantee that the set will run. If the signal
processor, horizontal stages, or the flyback are defective you might get the
same symptoms you described.
If you don't have the print for this set I would suggest it highly so you
can follow the relevant circuits.

Good Luck,
Bill Jr




"William Collier" <kingsxwc@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:mnZOa.60563$hV.3722885@twister.austin.rr.com...

I replaced q400 without any change. Any more suggestions?
"Bill Jr" <bill@nospam.usa2net.net> wrote in message
news:g8pOa.67493$ic1.1084929@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
Looks like you forgot to replace Q400 (TIP47)

Good Luck,
Bill Jr


"William Collier" <kingsxwc@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:ymoOa.46613$XV.3054515@twister.austin.rr.com...
Ok, I replaced STR30130 and the HOT (Q502) as well as the burnt
resisters.
Now, when I hit the power button, the output of STR30130 (pin 4) goes
to
130VDC so that seems to be working now. But that's all it does. In
order
to "turn off" the TV, I have to unplug it and wait about a min then
plug
it
back in. Then the output is 15VDC again. Any suggestions?


"William Collier" <kingsxwc@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:iKKMa.39953$hV.2499664@twister.austin.rr.com...
Thanks for the info Ron. The voltage regulator has 142VDC on the
input
(pin3) with 15 VDC on the output (pin4). It appears that R432 is
connected
to pin 3 on the regulator so I'm gonna check the REAL HOT this time
as
well
as the other two xstr's and if they are ok, try replacing R432 and
the
30130
regulator and see where that gets me. One more thing, the only fuse
I
can
find is the main fuse and it is labeled F400. Where is F401?

William

"RonKZ650" <ronkz650@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20030702163449.29848.00000001@mb-m26.aol.com...
R432 is a 1K resistor. The STR30130 is not the horiz output, its
the
power
supply regulator IC. The relay you referred to in your first post
is
not
an
on/off relay, but part of the degausing circuit. The way this set
works
is
you
should have about 160vdc at all times on pin 3 of the STR30130.
This
is
the
input. Pin 4 is the output. It should have about 15-20v when the
set
is
off,
130v when on. It is turned on or off through a couple transistors
that
feed pin
2.
Your horiz output transistor is Q502. Check emitter to collector
for
a
short.
If shorted you probably have bad solder connections at transformer
T504.
If you have 160v on pin 3 of the STR30130, but the output wont
turn
on
to
130v,
you probably have a bad STR30130. If you are missing the 160V at
pin
3
you
probably have a shorted horiz ouput and open fuse F401.
Hope this might help you.
Ron

I found r432 burned (not sure how I missed it the first time).
It
looks
to
be part of the HOT biasing. I can't quite make out the color
code
on
the
resister. Does anybody know what the value is supposed to be.
Best
guess
is 1K but I can't tell for sure due to the damage.
I pulled out the HOT and it seems to have good resistence
readings.
Nothing
obviously shorted through and no indication of any heat damage.

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Kevin Aylward wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:
Kevin Aylward wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:


In a particular instance there is often a superior method. For
certain conditions, there are well tried methods. The issue is
determining what the cause of the problem is.

One has to accept that the brain can "malfunction" for at least two
independent reasons, either by physical processes e.g. lack of some
chemical *or* some sort of brainwashing. It don't make sense to try
and fix your allocation problem in software if the problem is a
fried memory chip, neither does it make sense to add to add 100
speed up processors if the code is slow because of wait loops.

Kevin Aylward


flip
a coin, it will still turn up heads or tails due to cause and
effect.

There are at least two flaws with this argument. The first is the
obvious quantum uncertainty.
----------------
Uncertainty is both only hypothetical about any one instance, and
statistical about groups of instances. Only one outcome finally ever
happens,

Yes.

and it can be said to always have been inevitable.

No. You need to learn a bit more about QM. You are suggesting prediction
after the fact. QM says the universe is inherently uncertain. If you
could roll back time and do the experiment again, with the *exact* same
conditions, the output would be different.
------------------------------

No, if you did the same thing at the same time in the history of the
universe in the same place it would do the same thing, because it
already DID and always HAS!

Only in an alternate universe, per the "many worlds interpretation"
(MWI) would it be different, and that is NOT the same universe.

QM fundamentally contradicts the postulate of cause and effect.
------------------------------

Nope! Not the MWI doesn't.

You can
talk many-worlds,

I personally think the MWI is complete nonsense. Its not required in QM,
it a simple metaphysical add-on.
------------------------------

It makes sense of too many things to be dismissed, ala Occam.
Copenhageners always say that, but they have grave difficulties.

but you can never ever live in more than one life.

But we have no way of knowing what that life is.
----------------------------

Our ignorance is unrelated to cause and effect and inevitability,
no matter whether it is temporary or eternal.

That makes your life, and all individual lives, as they are certainly
experienced, quite completely deterministic and inevitable by cause
and effect, no matter WHAT the rules of cause and effect are!!

No. See above. As I said, your cliam of cause and effect has
*experimental* been proven false. This is why Einstein had such a
problem with QM. It fundamental goes against classical ideas.
------------------------

There is no way to disprove MWI experimentally, it is a heuristic
interpretation. Try it, I'll blow you away.

A given input does not uniquely specify an
output. The second, is classical uncertainty. Large numbers of
non-linear systems are such that the outputs from a given input can
not determined because of uncertainty in the initial conditions.
This is often expressed by ill conditioned, or even by the term,
chaotic systems. The idea of making in depth predictions for
anything but the simplest of systems has been given up long ago.
--------------------
I know the physics,

Obviously not.
--------------------------

Wrong.

but you can never experience more than one
outcome,

And you point would be?
--------------------------

Alternative realities is the most expansive and most easily accepted
interpretation of QM, and MWI are irrelevant to an Individual Life,
which is the ONLY way the Universe/Reality Occurs and Is Experienced.

the theory of uncertainty is totally a hypothetical

Nonsense. Its well tested.
------------------------

That's not what I mean.

There is NO way to EVER repeat an experiment exactly.

There is NO way to absolutely duplicate any experience, because each
tiniest feature of reality depends on the Totality of the Universe.
All circumstances are all different, we simply state that individuated
separable causes for effects are governed by statistics ala Uncertainty.

It is still a hypothetical, because we don't have Absolute Knowledge
of cause and effect, we are trying to isolate a non-isolatable
phenomenon. Uncertainty is true, but it is ours, and I don't mean
that it is our failure or due to any inaccuracy, instead what I mean
is that it is due to the inherent limitations of Life. There are NO
true closed systems, even though we pretend this in physics.

that can
never be tested except statistically about laboratory experiments
that are similar.

Rubbish. Ill conditioned equations can be examined at will. Try
balancing a single pencil on its point.
----------------------------------

Unrelated.

Arguable, QM may or may not form a limiting aspect to human
behaviour, however classical uncertainty certainly does. The claim
that, in principle, a classical system can be deterministic, is
vacuous.
----------------
The notion of the only deterministic system having to be classical
is specious. The rules don't matter, clearly things follow the rules,
whatever they are, else we would have multiple outcomes, and we have
ONE and ONLY ONE outcome per lifetime.

But we don't know that outcome, nor can we predict it. We don't have all
the information. The fact that we only have one outcome, does not mean
that the rules allow us to predict that outcome.
-------------------------------------

If we assume there is a physics, then that implies cause and effect
rules the Universe. Trying to do without that assumption will stop
you instantly. Whether the rules are "funny" in this particular way
in no way obviates cause and effect. What happens was always going
to happen in this life we are experiencing, by definition. It is
strictly other selves, like you but NOT you, who experience other
similar universes that within Heisenberg's Uncertainty all share the
moment of interest. Any instant has an infinite number of possible
pasts, and an infinite number of possible futures, converging here
and now and diverging beyond now.

To all
intents and purposes, given the inputs to a complex system (e.g the
brain), the output can not be determined.
----------------
You're saying that you or I cannot determine it. The world obviously
can, as it comes up with one and only one outcome per lifetime for
each moment in that lifetime.

Not according to QM. You just don't seem to get how profound QM really
is. Given identical conditions, more than one outcome is possible.
----------------------------------

Yes, in alterantive universes branching from the same instant. But
we can never live more than one of them, and cause and effect and
inevitability is the wall between these universes,

Anyway, this is not relevant. What matters is whether a person can make
a correct prediction on his known inputs. He cant.
-------------------------------------

Only within certain limits, as QM, and Goedel says.

The *same* input, can, in
practise, lead to *different* outputs. Indeed, the knowledge that an
equation can have more than one solution with an exact input, leads
to the reality that cause an effect is not applicable in removing an
individuals own responsibility to their own actions. For example,
given someone says hallo to them, independent of prior history, it
may cause them to shot or give them a $1. There is simply no way of
making a valid prediction.
----------------
Not for us, we are made of a finite number of limited instants of
time.

What are you gabbing on about. You believe that you can predict anything
you want. Get real.
-------------------------

I don't have that ability. No individual will have that ability.
Life is far too finite an experience to be able to grasp itself,
ala Goedel.

That we cannot do something is unimportant.

Not at all.
------------------------------

Sure, we are limited beings, but our inability to predict has nothing
whatsoever to do with the Truth of Determinism.

Mice can't either. A Life cannot encompass and understand its self
and its meaning or all its causes and effects. We are merely stuck
with them.

So, the technicality of cause and effect, has little relevance in
practice. There is simply no way utilise this principle, if it were
so, I would be down at the dog track making my fortune. Your basic
flaw is that you assume that cause and effect uniquely determines an
outcome from an income. Non-linear equations simply don't have that
property.

Kevin Aylward
----------------------------------
Whether you can make a fortune at it is not the test of the Truth.

Is to me.
--------------------

Then you are a business major, not a Scientist.

There is one and only one outcome in any moment in any lifetime, and
that means it is unique!

What we experience is unique, but that does not mean that that unique
outcome is a predictable from cause and effect.
---------------------

Predictability is unrelated to cause and effect. What happens happened
for its own reasons, even if WE WILL NEVER and *CAN* NEVER KNOW WHY!

All grass is green, does
not imply that all that is green is grass.
------------------------

Irrelevant.

And THAT means that it is determined by cause
and effect, even if different things happen in different possible
lifetimes. They are hypothetical in any ONE lifetime, and you can only
live ONE lifetime, THAT Lifetime is You!!!

This is all vacuous. It don't matter what might happen, even if QM is
wrong, or any other bullshit you come with. If you don't actually have
*all* the information *personally* you cant make a prediction, so any
choice you do make is basically random, i.e. not based on prior causes.

Kevin Aylward
-------------------------------------

You can only make one decision if you decide, the universe can only
happen one way at a time.
-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[R. Steve Walz]

bigmike wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
news:3F0B9B35.7696@armory.com...
Carlos Antunes wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
news:3F0B83C0.6033@armory.com...

If you'd actually read anything about Determinism, you'd discover
that QM/Uncertainty has absolutely nothing to do with it.


Bullshit! Determinism is simply an approximation to reality when
macroscopic
systems are involved.
----------------------------
You're blowing it out your ass with your handwaving.

No matter what the scale, you cannot show that cause and effect is
not operant.


The fact that reality is and always will be such that it has only one
outcome
at any moment in one life at a time, which is the ONLY way reality
occurs, is what makes Determinism absolutely unquestionable.


Bullshit! The fact that there is only one outcome doesn't mean others
weren't possible.
--------------------
Possible is totally meaningless if THEY didn't occur.
If they did not, then they were obviously IMPOSSIBLE!


Every single moment and event is the reuslt of cause and effect, no
matter
what the rules are.


Bullshit! Cause and effect cannot even be extracted from Newtonian
mechanics. It needs to be added ad hoc.
-------------------------
This is genuine absurdity on your part. Cause and effect is physics.

And the more you say bullshit the more we can see you have nothing
you can really say!!


We don't have Free Will because it would make existence impossible
and chaotic, with no continuity or cause and effect.

The simple fact that several different outcomes are possible, even if
only
one is ultimately experienced, negates this conclusion of yours.
-------------------
Possible is strictly a hypothetical, and strictly based on our
awareness of our ignorance and inability to predict due to OUR
failure to know all circumstances, and NOT any failure of cause
and effect!!


Go read
something about quantum mechanics to get a clue.

Carlos Antunes
---------------------
I think my degrees in physics mean that I did, dipstick!
-Steve
--
Now, if you only had a degree in common sense.
----------------------

Common sense, isn't. And you don't have any.
-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[John Del]

Subject: Re: Lightning strike to JVC AV-36260
From: "Leonard Caillouet" lcailloNOSPAM@devoynet.com
Date: 7/9/03 7:34 AM Eastern Daylight

John, why would you assume this? I have seen many sets and related
components damaged by lighning coming down the cable or antenna line
(actually usually shield), as evidenced by burn marks on the connectors and
ground foils burned up......
Leonard Caillouet

I assumed that based on the description of the problem with that JVC, something
I've seen lots of in their newer models. The original poster is saying the TV
is dead, save for the LED flashing. While it's certainly possible for this
damage to be caused by cable inputs (or even from other equipment connected
through the A\V jacks), the vast majority of damage I've seen from surges in my
30 plus years are line related, and this JVC certainly fits this description
well.

I have seen a lot of customers blame the cable company for line surge failures
in order to get the loss pinned on someone besides themselves. Of course I
don't know for sure, which is why I didn't say it in my original response, but
a flag went up nonetheless.

John

 

[David]

Have a qualified technician give you an estimate to repair the tv set.
The tv has a failure in the vertical circuit that needs troublshot and
repaired.

It is very clear that since you did not even post the most basic required
information that you do not have the knowledge or skill required to attempt
a repair at this time.


verzub <verzub@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:N7MOa.7063$Vx2.3326328@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com...

I have a Toshiba TV made in '91 and the whole image is squished into one
horizontal line. Does anyone know what I could do?

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Kevin Aylward wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:
Carlos Antunes wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
news:3F0B83C0.6033@armory.com...



Go read
something about quantum mechanics to get a clue.

Carlos Antunes
---------------------
I think my degrees in physics mean that I did, dipstick!
-Steve

Obviously not.

You have failed to understand the very basics of QM. Quantum Mechanics
*specifically* *refutes* cause and effect.
-----------------

No, it only refutes simple prediction.

Its at its very core. Its why
Feynmann says "no one understands it". Its simply not explainable by any
normal rational means. *only* averages follow cause and effect in a
vague sort of way. Individual effects are not directly related to a
cause. Its a proven experimental fact.
-------------------

Your grasp of QM is fanciful, and sub-standard for any physics grad.
Reality has outcomes, and they are unary here and now, which is the
ONLY "place" than can be shown to EVER exist.

t any moment in one life at a time, which is the ONLY way reality
occurs, is what makes Determinism absolutely unquestionable.

This is refuted in every QM experiment to date.
--------------------------------

Nonsense.
What you have said here means that you never understood it at all.

Every
single moment and event is the reuslt of cause and effect,

Not according to Qm.
---------------------------

Wrong.
The totality of the way an instant of your Life turns out, is unary,
it is one outcome, it is NOT many outcomes at once for you in your
life. A Many World Interpretation is a heuristic explanation of the
Heisenberg Uncertainty, but you will never experience more than one
"Universe", so all it does is explain some theory that leads to
results that to us require statistical answers and always will because
of the nature of mathematics and reality. But only one outcome does
finally occur in this Life we experience, period!

no matter
what the rules are. If there is one and only one outcome, then it
is caused, absolutely, and you can't seriously maintain otherwise.

This is false, and contradicts known QM.
-------------------------------------

No, you're confused.
It is a gedanken experiment that is primary, you are forced to admit
that there is only one real outcome to any situation.

Whether statistical methods are useful, in relating a number of results
in parallel BUT NOT IDENTICAL circumstances where we expected to see
them all do the same thing, is not important to cause and effect
producing only one outcome. In multiple experiments they are different
particles at different times. All we are doing is refusing to
acknowledge that when we do what we imagine is the same thing to a
bunch of particles, that we really are not, because they are in
different places at different times, and that it somehow makes a
difference, and our notion of a closed system, is erroneous. This
doesn't say that the conditions of any one particle can either ever
BE known OR be shown to cause the same effect. What it shows is that
even though it MAY WELL BE UNKNOWABLE IN ITS VERY NATURE FOREVER,
that STILL, whatever happens happens, and it is a UNARY result!
Once you admit that, saying it was always going to happen is nothing
more than an obvious semantic.

QM can deal with the assumption that there are hidden variables of a
type that, although unknown, in principle, would rule out randomness.
------------------

Determinism doesn't care at all WHICH is true, whether there are
or are not hidden varaibles. It doesn't MATTER what the rules are,
as long as YOU NEVER have TWO DIFFERENT tuesday next's at your
office at 10:30AM!!!!! If you do not, then the outcome is unary,
and Deterministic, and inevitable, and has always been so.

You can still make testable predictions of experiments, even if you
don't know what the form of the determinism actually is. These
experiment indicate that that randomness is inherent.
----------------------------

I know all that, you're explaining kiddie concepts.

I find it striking that you claim to have a degree in Physics, yet do
not understand the basics of, its fundamental theories.
---------------------------

You have assumed something in the course of your education, that
simply is not so, and this has occurred due to philosophical prejudices
of your own that led you to ignore the kinds of things I'm telling you
and the fact that they are totally compatible with QM.

You keep clinging to this school boy view of the world.
-------------------------

Nonsense, QM was traumatic and a revelation. I had to reformulate
everything, but it worked better afterwards.

Sure, it really goes
against the grain, and seems absolutely nonsensical that individual
effects don't have a direct cause, but that's what the experiments say.
--------------------------

The Cause and Effect I refer you to are not any individualized or
even any individualizable "effects" or specific "causes", but the
sum-total Cause and Effect of the Next Moment. Since there is precisely
one and ONLY one next moment, it IS quite specifically Caused, and
it IS the Effect. That different particles at the same time, or the
same particle at different times must adhere to Quantum Statistics,
is unimportant to the fact that the Next Instant is Specific, and
therefore, for LINGUISTIC SEMANTIC REASONS it must be SAID to have
always been inevitable, by the definition OF THOSE VERY WORDS! This
is NOT a matter of physics, but of epistemology!! You just don't
wish to grasp that, for reasons of your own personal insecurity!!

However, be sure to let us know when you have finalised your own
alternative theory to QM that contradicts this view and reintroduces
determinism.

Kevin Aylward
----------------------------

You're being silly. No reputable physicist or philosopher of science
has ever declared the "death of determinism" at the hand of QM, nor
could they, unless they were at "bob jones U" opr some fundy "school
of drool"! The arguments for Determinism simply don't rely upon what
you have assumed that they do!!

I don't state anything that isn't obvious and merely semantic!!
-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[Carlos Antunes]

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
news:3F0CD894.EEA@armory.com...

all you blathered was filth.

Hey, that's all you deserve, man!

Carlos Antunes

 

[Jerry Greenberg]

Going from experience with these TV sets, I would suspect the problem
to be mainly localized to the power supply. I would first try to
service the power supply. If the problem in the supply is really very
severe, then I would probably replace the complete supply circuit
board.

Most of the time when there is an overvoltage on the AC mains to a TV
set, only some localized components in the supply have to be replaced.
The rest of the set should not have any effect at all.

The only time I have seen a set have to be scrapped due to a voltage
problem was when a lightning strike went directly to the antenna, and
did a lot of damage.


Jerry Greenberg

--


DigitalVinyl <reader@internet.com> wrote in message news:<6b1pgvsneh0j038vq46c2po8otfdbgdjnc@4ax.com>...

I have a high end Sony XBR HDTV. An electrician's employee fried it
when working on replaceing the panels. We think they sent 220v through
two different circuits. A fan, vcr, dvd, two light bulbs, and a surge
suppressor protecting computer equipment were all fried.

The TV was the big ticket item ($2,000+ to replace), it was only 11
months old and has worked flawlessly.

The repair guy assured me once the "broken" boards are replaced it
will be fine. I have no faith that when the TV repair guy is done that
I will have a "good as new" tv. I fully expect the TV to fail within
the next few years or suffer from other issues. If the voltage got
past the power board I don't see how they could know if it caused
subtle damge to the components or picture tube that could shorten its
life.

We've all dealt with lemons. Once something needs repairing, a
lifetime of repair can follow. I thought I scored a good one that
would last 10-20 years. Now I will have a refurbished TV.

Am i way off base here--from a TV-electronics view? I don't want to
be contacting this electrician and arguing whether future problems are
a result of this incident?

I really want them to replace it with a brand new one.

I've dealt with heat damaged high-end computers that have taken up to
two years to detect all the subtle damage to circuitry. The servers
were flaky and constantly replacing components. Two years after the
initial damage the manufacturer found tiny cracks and leakage in
circuit boards.

DiGiTAL_ViNYL (no email)

 

[William R. Walsh]

Hi!

Thanks William and Sam for not quacking with the flock.

I posted a question out of curiosity and amazement at the lack of
protection. I did not know I was poking a stick into a clump of
maggots who are in love with HP and take me for a fool.

Unfortunately, I think many of the people in this group get a little too
carried away. Every last one of them has doubtlessly burned something up in
a fit of foolishness. For professional repairpeople, some sure lose their
professional side here.

If you get into repairing electronics, you will see plenty of STUPID
designs. Get ready, you may see things that are far more shocking.

The DEDICATED, APPROVED and blessed by a RABBI adapter failed. So
doing my best not to overpolute the earth with dead printers, I made a
call to HP and asked if they sold replacements. I was given a warning
speech, much like by some of the folks here, and quoted a price that
was 80% of a new printer.

If you ever get another and need a PSU, you can find the same PSU used
across nearly the whole 600~670 series and some ScanJets (4100C IIRC) use
the same one.

Oh, and you forgot the UL, CSA, TUV, and any other safety certification
organizations in the list of blessings above.

Radio Shack supplies an adapter of the same voltage and slightly
higher current rating, at fraction of the cost. Perhaps in haste, I
assumed that the center prong is POSITIVE, and to be honest I also
assumed that the printer was protected. Well, two wrongs...

May not make a right, but they do make for a learning experience.

Maybe I was under the impression of a DigiCam I just bought, which
specified in the Owners Manual that it was reverse polarity protected,
and if there is room for a diode in a tiny pocket camera, well I
thought...

Not a bad thought, but people are people the nonetheless. Just when you
think they will do something in a given situation, and are depending upon
them doing so...they don't!

Who knows, had I left the printer plugged in any longer, I probably
could have bought a new house with HP money.

The smoke and smell would have been the worst of it in all likelihood. Worst
case a household fuse would have blown in the event of a totally dead short.

Right now, I'm setting up a brand new Epson.

For your own sake, take that thing right back to the store. Buy anything but
an Epson.

Epson used to make some great printers, but that ended after the dot-matrix
T-1000...which was one hell of a printer. ESC/P2 and all later units are
disasters. You just couldn't kill one of those T-1000 things. I still have
two and one survived an attack by theives/vandals where all other printers
were knocked to bits. The T-1000 lost only its paper advance knob and
powered on afterward like nothing ever happened.

William

 

[William R. Walsh]

Hi!

Perhaps like the case with the too hot coffee at MacDonalds, it will
take a burnt house and a law suit, to put common sense into design of
consumer products.


You wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
Basically the printer
would not catch fire if you where using the correct manufacturers own PSU.

Total crap. Nothing can EVER guarantee the printer would not catch on fire
no matter what power supply you use. Things still can go wrong.

Why do you think all those consumer devices have a warning at the front of
their manuals? Usually 'To prevent the risk of electric-shock and fire
only
use the approved AC adaptor'.

To dissuade foolish people from plugging in any old adapter and to make
money for the manufacturer. That's all. They all say the same thing about
pulling the covers off too, ya know?

William

 

[William R. Walsh]

Hi!

You obviously haven't looked at a HP PSU for some time then.

I wouldn't bet the farm on that one.

On an old Deskjet 500 maybe, they used conventional linear PSUs. HP use
rather decent quality switch mode PSUs now.

And on nearly all the DeskJet 600s with external supplies (I have seen a
very few with SMPS "bricks") they ARE simple transformer supplies. I
wouldn't tell you that unless I knew it to be the case.

I am not speaking of the 800 series and many late late late 600s. These do
often use [integrated] SMPS style supplies.

Why don't you weigh or handle a DeskJet 600-series supply? Awful heavy for
an SMPS aren't they? That would be because they AREN'T an SMPS!

William

 

[David]

You should have virtually no chance of any future problems, especially if
they can replace the power supply board with a new one from Sony.

Sony sets use a switch mode power supply that has tons of protection built
in. In fact many techs have a difficult time with the XBR Sony sets for
that very reason, in the past it was difficult to know which protect circuit
was causing the problem.

Usually 220volts on a modern SMPS only damage a very small number of
components. They are designed to be within normal operating range between
90 and 150 volts at a minimum, many are dual system capable 90 volts through
260v AC.

The only exception is if the set was turned on and running and he lifted the
nuetral line while the 220v was applied. There could be further damage in
the set and the SONY authorized SELECT servicer should have no trouble
identifying that.

David

DigitalVinyl <reader@internet.com> wrote in message
news:6b1pgvsneh0j038vq46c2po8otfdbgdjnc@4ax.com...

I have a high end Sony XBR HDTV. An electrician's employee fried it
when working on replaceing the panels. We think they sent 220v through
two different circuits. A fan, vcr, dvd, two light bulbs, and a surge
suppressor protecting computer equipment were all fried.

The TV was the big ticket item ($2,000+ to replace), it was only 11
months old and has worked flawlessly.

The repair guy assured me once the "broken" boards are replaced it
will be fine. I have no faith that when the TV repair guy is done that
I will have a "good as new" tv. I fully expect the TV to fail within
the next few years or suffer from other issues. If the voltage got
past the power board I don't see how they could know if it caused
subtle damge to the components or picture tube that could shorten its
life.

We've all dealt with lemons. Once something needs repairing, a
lifetime of repair can follow. I thought I scored a good one that
would last 10-20 years. Now I will have a refurbished TV.

Am i way off base here--from a TV-electronics view? I don't want to
be contacting this electrician and arguing whether future problems are
a result of this incident?

I really want them to replace it with a brand new one.

I've dealt with heat damaged high-end computers that have taken up to
two years to detect all the subtle damage to circuitry. The servers
were flaky and constantly replacing components. Two years after the
initial damage the manufacturer found tiny cracks and leakage in
circuit boards.

DiGiTAL_ViNYL (no email)

 

[David]

I would expect that ONLY in the low end Sony mass market stuff.
The high end XBR sets have a much higher level of protection, especially the
RPTV sets.

TCS <The.Central.Scrutinizer@p.o.b.o.x.com> wrote in message
news:slrnbgp65h.n14.The.Central.Scrutinizer@turing.kaosol.net...

On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 17:48:28 -0400, Leonard G. Caillouet
lcaillo_ns_@devoynet.com> wrote:
Make sure that you use a Sony authorized servicer or at least someone
who
has the service and training manuals. The damage is likely limited to
the
power supply. The set is quite well protected from overvoltage damage
to
most everything beyond the supplies. It is likely that the power supply
will not need to be replaced but can be repaired rather easily.

On a sony?!?? I'd expect the supply to go unregulated and blow out
everything in it's path. More profitable for sony that way. It might
cost a couple of penny's in extra componentry to prevent that and that
would be money wasted.

 

[Karel]

"Jan" <janellen@dolfijn.nl> wrote in message
news:behq6t$du5$1@reader11.wxs.nl...

I have a component with a Z(XXX) ID and symbol -><-. I don't know what it
is. It was in my monitor close to the flyback.
Thanks in advance

Jan

Hoi Jan,

What are the dimensions/shape?

k.r

Karel

 

[Jerry Greenberg]

verzub wrote:

I bought a while ago a little entertainment cd-changer, radio deal. It has a
slot on the back that says AM Loop Antenna, and without it, the AM Radio
doesn't work. How can I fix this?

In case it helps the radio that I speak of can be found here
http://support.tandy.com/support_audio/doc63/63987.pdf
Thanks




You will require the origional AM loop antenna for your set. Inquire to

the manufacture rep to order the origional part. After replacement, if
the AM section does not function, the set will require service. But, it
will not work without the proper loop antenna.

--

Jerry Greenberg GLG Technologies GLG
==============================================
WebPage <http://www.zoom-one.com>
Electronics <http://www.zoom-one.com/electron.htm>
Instruments <http://www.zoom-one.com/glgtech.htm>
==============================================

 

[Robert Morein]

"Jeff" <nospam@cox.net> wrote in message news:3F0CB4F8.9404B1E7@cox.net...

Does anyone have an idea of the production dates/cutoff of the 3 main
generations of 7904's (below s/n 260000, above s/n 260000, & 7904A)?

Thanks in advance,

Jeff

The 7904A does not appear in the 1980 Tek catalog, but it's in the 1984

catalog.

 

[Hallvard Tangeraas]

The One <NOSPAM@spamaid.com> wrote:

If the camcorder plays back OK via the video output and RF output then
judging by the ringing you are getting in the viewfinder it looks like you
have a fault in the circuitry which drives the viewfinder. I dont have any
experience of this model but would look for any transformer providing drive
to the viewfinder and check the damping resistor and capacitor.

No, it's not the viewfinder as I'm getting same gray bars when connected
to the video output *when in camera mode*.
All's well when I play back previously recorded tapes from years ago
(when I apparently didn't have this problem), or even just set it to VCR
mode without any tape in, so as I've said in my previous posting -this
seems to have to do with the camera part of the camcorder.


Hallvard
--
Atari Launchpad : <http://launchpad.atari.org>
Notator/Creator SL : <http://www.notator.org>

 

[Jon Paterson]

Hello All. The pop noise is not the standard degaussing noise - I am
well aware of what this sounds like!

The audio circuit is interesting, although what gets me is that this
will only occur when started within a certain time period since being
on - the static buildup seems logical, but I know he checked all the
earthing straps on the tube, and the main 2 earthing points on the set
itself.


Would I be right that I should be able to smell something if it was
HV?


regards,

Jon Paterson

"Dave D" <someone@somewhere.com> wrote in message news:<beiatq$9fk$1@sparta.btinternet.com>...

"DigitalVinyl" <reader@internet.com> wrote in message

SONY TV's high end de-gauss when they power on. Mine (KV36XBR800) pops
and a kind of "sizzle" can be heard.

That's probably static build up on the CRT, degauss can make a thud or a
buzz.

My 21" monitor was built the same
way (auto-gauss on power up).

All consumer CRT TVs and monitors auto degauss when powered on, either from
standby or mains switch. If they didn't, they'd be unusable in no time.

I'm not a tv-techie, but it has to do with the electrical field/static
buildup. Degauss dissapates it.

Degauss neutralises, for want of a better word, residual magnetism in the
shadow mask, it isn't related to static.

The more the buildup (longer tv was
recently on) the louder it gets. That's why when the tv has been off
you don't hear it and when the TV was just on(buildup charge) it gets
louder.


No, it is louder when the set is cold because of the way the auto-degauss
circuit works. When the set is turned on from cold the degauss thermistor is
cold and has a very low resistance, and passes a large current to the
degauss coils. The current through the thermistor heats it up and the
thermistor's resistance gets progressively higher until virtually no current
passes through the coils. The thermistor remains in its hot, high resistance
state as long as the TV is on. When the TV is turned off it begins to cool.
Obviously, the longer it has to cool, the bigger degauss current will flow
when powering it back on. If a TV is switched off and straight back on again
the thermistor not have time to cool and therefore no degaussing will take
place.

Dave

 

[Dave D]

"William R. Walsh" <newsgroups1@idontwantjunqueemail.walshcomptech.com>
wrote in message news:QH5Pa.24062$H17.7420@sccrnsc02...

Hi!

You obviously haven't looked at a HP PSU for some time then.

I wouldn't bet the farm on that one.

On an old Deskjet 500 maybe, they used conventional linear PSUs. HP use
rather decent quality switch mode PSUs now.

And on nearly all the DeskJet 600s with external supplies (I have seen a
very few with SMPS "bricks") they ARE simple transformer supplies. I
wouldn't tell you that unless I knew it to be the case.

Fair enough, but what I actually replied to was your statement "Cut open an
old HP printer power
supply." I was simply pointing out that HP are using SMPSs now, maybe not
exclusively I'll grant you. I'll take your word for it that the supply in
question is conventional.


Dave