Toshiba TV29C90 problem; Image fades to black...

[The One]

Do NOT go to PC World under any circumstances.

Look at this site.

http://www.mastercare.blogspot.com/




"ToasterKing" <toasterking@SPLATbigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:060720030313226969%toasterking@SPLATbigfoot.com...

In article <bdua86$br1$1@pheidippides.axion.bt.co.uk>, snoopy
snoopy@bt.com> wrote:

The problem is the laptop alway got power cut off suddently for 1 year.
Several days ago, the fan got stop ratating after the laptop running
only 15
mins. Any suggestion on this problem?

Umm... could you be more descriptive? Please try to expand upon the
"alway got power cut off suddently for 1 year" idea; I'm not sure what
that means.

Anybody knows a good place where I can bring my laptop to repair in
Ipswich
area? Someone recommends PCworld beside TESCO in Ipswich. Is that good?
Which route of bus I take to there?
Many thanks

Could you tell us where Ipswitch is?

--
Please remove the word "SPLAT" from either below address to use it.
Email: mailto:ToasterKing@SPLATbigfoot.com
Visit ToasterKingdom at http://SPLATtoasterking.tripod.com/

 

[Craig]

Hmmm...let's see. New Controller board...$185 - $275.
New microwave...$89
That's a no-brainer....unless you guys know of more reasonable pricing for
parts.

Thanks,
Craig


"Jerry Greenberg" <jerryg50@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:460a833b.0307091626.56e85103@posting.google.com...

Order a new controler board, and key pad assy. If the parts are still
available, Sharp sells these as a replacement parts. It is very rare
and not cost effective to troubleshoot these boards at the component
level in the service departments. In many instances the descreat
components from Sharp may not be available. There are many
specialized devices on these boards. Sharp should also be able to
supply the service manual if it is still available.

Jerry Greenberg

--


"Craig" <craig.a.willis@boeing.com> wrote in message
news:<HHrFv7.ByG@news.boeing.com>...
Would anyone happen to have a schematic for a Sharp R7380 microwave?

The keypad would intermittently ignore a key or two, and then recently
it
stopped accepting input from almost all keys. I suspect the controller
board, and there do seem to be a couple of dark spots on the board near
a
couple zener diodes and caps. Any help would be most appreciated.

Thanks,
Craig

Manufacturer: Sharp
Model Number: R7380
Numbers on controller board: H14A 94V-0, FA112DR

 

[paul s]

The One wrote:

Do NOT go to PC World under any circumstances.

PC-World as recommended by Gary Glitter.

Look at this site.

http://www.mastercare.blogspot.com/

Also avoid Dixons and Currys, they are the same company as
PC-Wound-Mastercare.

--
Paul S

 

[N. Thornton]

Hi Kevin.

I think this should clear up some things.


Kevin Aylward (kevin@anasoft.co.uk) wrote: N. Thornton wrote:

And just how do you propose one finds out the cause without doing
experiments?
And just how do you propose one finds out what works without doing
experiments?

That's not so hard.

First, 'find out what works without doing experiments':

Many people have tried to treat their depression in many ways.
Many
have failed, some have succeeded. Thus many experiemnts have been
done
already.

But completely ad-hoc in general, therefore of limited use.

There are case specific ad-hoc ones, and widely applicable formula
ones. They are not all of limited use at all, and I have seen no real
reason to believe they are.

All one need do is collect the data:
1. realise this is an effective way to learn successful methods
2. attract the people
3. assess the claimed results
4. Apply statistics to discover what is actually working.

Then we will know what works.

But you can't apply meaningful statistics to back of the envelope
studies.

I'm not suggesting a back of envelope study. The data already exists,
and only needs collecting and assessing. The individuals have mostly
been assessed sufficiently within the medical system to know they have
found a real result. Applying statistics to such collected data does
indeed reveal a clear pattern. Lets give you an example.

method A 3 positive results out of 112 attempts
method B 30,000 positive results out of 50,000 attempts
method C 71 positive results out of 400 attempts
method D 4 positive results out of 6 attempts
method E 60 positive results out of 900 attempts

Very simple stuff, it shows clearly which method should be researched
in more depth, and which one might warrant more data collection. This
elementary statistics can indeed be applied.

One needs controlled studies, double-blind tests etc...
etc....Anything else is, in reality pretty much useless.

This is a standard misperception of our time. Collecting the info I
propose would indeed show who has recoverd from what and how, and it
will show up any substantial trends. Such data is not 100% reliable,
but 75% reliability is more than enough of a basis on which to do a
more thorough study on a method. I'll explain this more further down.

Its simply not
cricket to recommend, in a professional clinical environment, quack
cures based on dubious anecdotal claims.

Of course, I would not suggest doing so. First any positive results
would be used as a basis for more research, not for clinical
recommendations. Second there is nothing dubious and anecdotal about
the results of doctors exams and reports that clearly show a cure.
These exams have already been carried out in over 50% of cases.

Now, about 'find out the cause without doing experiments':

The prime point here is we primarily need to know what works.
Whether
you also know the cause or not, what works will still work.

I agree that what works can a valid approach in some instances, in
that
the reason behind is not always necessary. However, you have no idea
what *really* works without doing proper studies.

Thats why I propose a preliminary study that will show us what is
worth a detailed study. Not one to find out beyond doubt what works,
but one to find out what looks real promising, and is worthy of more
thorough research. I have found that there are such things about.

Looking at the cause can come later, for now we just want to know
what's working so we can apply it.

Its a bit like this: you can plant your wheat seeds and get a crop,
or
you can sit around and worry about what causes it to grow. Its the
result that matters most.

And the side effects.

If there are side effects I would consider that part of the result.
One of the results of drug based treatments is going to be side
effects.

This is something I think our NHS health service needs to learn.
There
are folk around who have solved many problems successfully,

Says who?. The snake oil salesman?

Lots of doctors and nurses have seen surprising cures. AFAIK they dont
sell snake oil. I think its obvious we wouldnt be looking for
testimonies from busineses selling junk.

lots of
doctors and nurses have come across the odd one who achieved a
remarkable result with their condition.

Which could have been luck, i.e. nothing to do with any purported
cure,
just fixed itself on its own. Happens all the time.

Of course. But when you get the data and find tens of thousands of
results from a particular method, way above the luck level with all
other approaches, that is statistically significant data, not just
luck. That is what we're looking for.

Yet the NHS is failing to
collate and assess such data, and study known successes to learn more
techniques it can apply.

One offs are not success.

So if you have a condition and you find a way to successfully treat
it, and have used the treatment lets say 10 times in your life, and it
has resulted in rapid favourable outcomes each time, you're saying
that's not a success? It is by definition a success.

There are working treatments about that have been employed by far more
than one person: clearly numbers are needed to reach any useful level
of conclusion reliability.

The evidence has to be very strong.

It has to be strong enough to warrant a further research project. That
is quite achievable.

This can
*only* come about by controlled trials. This is really a no-brainier.

That's what you've been taught, and I understand why. In reality you
dont need controlled trials to get 75% confidence. You can get that by
pooling multiple results of uncontrolled trials. You'll never get
100%, but with some things you can get enough confidence to warrant
doing a more in depth investigation.

Now, tell me, was the treatment oral magnesium suphate discovered by
double blind controlled trials? I think not. Yet it works, and was
discovered to work. Obviously it is not only controlled trials that
can produce useful data, you only have to understand statistics to see
that, rather than believe what you're taught blindly.

There are very good reasons why dbc trials are generally insisted on,
but to discount _all_ others is an (understandable) mistake... I could
get into all that in much more depth, but its a whole thread on its
own.

Instead the NHS refuses to learn what it
doesn't know.

Confirmation of claimed cures involve large amounts of money.

The system already has that data. Its on peoples medical records.
Those people have already been assessed by their docs/specialists and
found to be better. It costs little.

What does need changing is a specific form is required for this, to
make this data clear and mass-harvestable. At the moment sometimes the
relevant info is written on the records, sometimes its not, and almost
never is it reported to anyone who could make use of it.

The system don't have it.

Wrong again.
1. It takes no fortune to run a small data collection point and issue
the forms.
2. It is actually a very cost effective way to do research to find new
treatments, much more so than paying for drugs that cost billions to
develop. The system does have the money to pay for that, it just needs
to allocate a little of that money more wisely.

When the survey results achieve a successful treatment, it will start
to save the system money. It is simply better value than billion pound
drugs.

Its like a river bed, among all the dirt there is gold
and diamonds, and those valuable things are simply not being made
any
use of.

I think you bit out on this one.

I know, but I'll wait until I see you've comprehended the idea before
taking on board such judgements. I hope from this reply you will be a
bit clearer on the concept I propose. Only when you have got what I'm
actually proposing will you be in a position to make a genuinely
informed judgement. So far that has not been possible - think about
that. Soon or now it will be.

The risks of doing something wrong simply does not allow for this approach.

That doesnt stop todays researchers. Research projects get it wrong
all the time, its expected, its OK.

There are too many claimed cures that arnt.

Absolutely. This can deal with those too when the scheme is later
extended to collecting failed treatment results as well, by reporting
the real results on Snake Oil Brand A. But in all of this we need to
do it based on _evidence_, and not presupposition, which is how its
done today sometimes.

Without proper studies, its all meaningless.

I'm suggesting a valid study that will lead to more thorough studies,
that will lead to a few new curative practices.

One only has two say the words "law" "sue" to put most people in the picture.

No, you've just missed it. Cite me a case of a researcher being sued
for honestly producing data that turns out to not pan out long term.
Its an erroneous criticism.

With what I'm proposing it is clear upfront to all that some of the
leads this generates will pan out and some wont. There wont be any
surprises or broken promises when something's found not to work later,
we know that will happen.

I'm thinking you'll be rather clearer by now on just what I'm
proposing.


Stay well, NT

 

[Guillaume]

Ahhhhhh. Politics and beliefs. The non-ending war.

That's true, but it's a pointless war.
Politics should not deal with beliefs, but should rather deal with
reality. Every time a system of beliefs is put into any kind of
political system, it kind of inevitably becomes dysfunctional.

It's kind of weird to believe that their are no choices
since it is your choice to believe that.

Exactly
Life itself is a choice. You can choose to live, or you can also
choose to kill yourself. The means of doing this is even totally
up to you. Of course, the means of living is also up to you.

Oh, by the way. Isn't this sci.electronics.repair?

Interestingly, it would be kind of obvious that if we indeed
had no choices as human beings, we wouldn't have been able to come
up with electronics or any other scientific stuff. Probably
no written language either.

If you really had no choices, you wouldn't be posting in this
newsgroup. Now where are you getting at exactly?

 

[The One]

Why bugger about tarting up a bloody computer with fancy lights.
I cant see the point. Just like those idiots who waste money on putting
lighting under their cars. Another stupid fad.

A computer is just a tool to do a job. Better save the money for when you
really need it, dont waste it on needless bits and pieces.


"KILOWATT" <kilowatt"nospam"@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:39lPa.16829$Tx.820317@news20.bellglobal.com...

Hi everyones...thanks a lot to read! A friend built a new
computer from scratch and on his tower's front panel he's
having some nice decorative plastic tubes that are lighted on each
ends by blue leds. (See the following link...sorry for the bad quality,
those images are from my webcam!)
http://www3.sympatico.ca/kilo.watt/images/tower_front_panel.jpg

Thoses leds(4 in total,2 sets of 2 wired in series for each side of the
front panel) are connected to a small drive circuit board less that a
square
inch. Dumb as he is, he thought 1st they were CC fluorescent tubes so he
managed to remove the wires installed in the molex power connector
(standard type used also for drives) and connect them to the output of
a small box (that was surely designed to drive normal CC fluorescent
tubes)
wich vary the light intensity with ambient sounds. The second later after
power-up
the same box went in smoke he said,and since then the front panel's
doesn't get lighted anymore.
In fact after i bring the panel at home and checked it throughly...i saw
that all the 4 leds
are shorted (really shorted... by less than .2V of voltage drop!) wich is
not surprising
since those high voltage modules that drives CC tubes probably deliver a
few hundreds
of volts...i'm not sure about the exact value. What i find surpising is
that all the components
on the drive circuit are intact! Some pics and a schematic is shown on the
following links:
http://www3.sympatico.ca/kilo.watt/images/pcb-33.jpg
http://www3.sympatico.ca/kilo.watt/images/pcb-44.jpg
http://www3.sympatico.ca/kilo.watt/images/blue_leds_circuit.bmp

The schematic show the components that drives two leds in series, wich is
duplicated for two other leds on the pc board. By looking at this
schematic,
is seems like a simple 11.8V series pass regulator. What i'm wondering of
is why
they used such regulator...it seems overkill...current limit resistors
would have been
sufficient for such job because after all, the 12V line from the computer
power supply
is regulated don't you think so? Speaking of wich, the 47ohms resistor
seems
a low value and would give a lot of current to the expensive leds. But
i've read somewhere
that their forward voltage drop is significantly higher than other leds.
I've searched on the net
especially on store's websites like Digikey,and found that many operate
near 3.5V...is this
the standard? If two of those are connected in series, then the 47ohms
resistor might not be
of too low value after all. TIA for any replies.

--
Alain(alias:Kilowatt)
Montréal Québec
PS: 1000 excuses for errors or omissions,
i'm a "pure" french canadian!
Come to visit me at: http://kilowatt.camarades.com
(If replying also by e-mail, remove
"no spam" from the adress.)

 

[Guillaume]

My mind changes itself as it desires, and that changes because of cause
and effect, but the awareness called "I" is not in charge of that, any
more than yours is, since the sense of self is merely a superficial
product of deeper processes.

I can't believe we would read such propaganda in the 21st century.

You're using fallacies to try and prove that no one actually
exists as such.

Since you don't exist as an individual, why are you then trying
so forcefully to prove your twisted views about life? That doesn't
add up. If you're really congruent with what you're saying, somehow
you should immediately shut up and stop arguing.

Oh, but wait... no... you can't do that. You have no free will.
Some higher force just pushes you to pollute internet newsgroups.
How practical.

 

[idlemuse]

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message news:<3F0CE009.6F36@armory.com>...

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.

Outcomes are experienced as individual effects at moments in time, but
that is insufficient evidence from which you can conclude that the one
you experienced was the only possible effect of the same cause. If a
single cause can have multiple effects, determinism as it is commonly
understood is on very thin ice.

There is a large difference between the statistical analysis used to
analyze gasses and the statistical behavior of particles near Planck
length. The gas is theoretically analyzable in terms of the
individual deterministic chains of causality for each of its component
particles. A tunneling electron is not even theoretically analyzable
in this way. The wave description of the particle says that the thing
itself contains an element of uncertainty. It is not a limitation of
our computers or of our ability to measure, the uncertainty is in the
electron itself.

I, like you, am not at all convinced that QM is the end of
determinism. One has only to look at the first formulative law of QM
to see that there are problems with that hypothesis. In the limit,
all quantum mechanical descriptions must conform to Newton. This
places a boundary on microscopic chaos.

Philosophically, the determinist's challenge to 'prove that you could
have chosen other than you did' is still every bit as problematic for
the non determinist as it ever was. Also, one view of QM is that it
inserts a roulette wheel between the cause and the effect. In that
light, determinism may not mean the same thing it used to, but QM is
hardly a savior of 'free will', either.

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!

There are two sides to determinism. That the outcome is singular when
experienced is only one of them. Constant conjunction is broken if a
single cause has multiple effects.

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

But they are identical in the hypothesis. The statistical
distributions of repeated experiments can be compared, and would
reveal causes that we are not seeing (presumably you are getting at
the idea that the mechanics aren't really statistical in nature, but
we just can't see the small changes that cause the different
outcomes).
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.

This is simply not the case, though. What is the cause of a particle
decaying at t=1 as opposed to t=2? If we are talking about dissimilar
initial states when we diffract electrons, why do we wind up with a
highly predictable distribution of results, even though we don't know
what each individual electron is going to do? More to the point, why
is that distribution exactly predictable if viewed as an interference
pattern?

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.

The total cause is the problem. If elements of the individual state
functions you are adding up result in non unitary possibilities (and
all this really implies is that they are 2nd order equations), you
can't add them up to a unitary function of state for the whole
universe to determine what your unitary outcome will be. All you can
demonstrate is that you only experience one outcome.

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!!

Just to be obnoxious, I'm going to throw in the concept of units of
time at very small scales. The equations tell us that you lose
sequentiality at a small enough scale of time. This would mean that
the next instant is not really specific if measured to a certain
number of decimal points.


That aside, I think you stil have some problems. If there is only one
universal state T1 and only one T2, and T2 follows T1, you are arguing
that the you have all of the requirements of determinism, cause and
effect be damned. The responses would be: 1) You only experience T2
after T1, but that is not sufficient to argue that T2 is the only one
that exists. 2) Even if the T2 of your experiece is the only one that
exists, you only have a strage sort of determinism. This determinism
simply defines sequentiality to be the same as causality. You are
imposing a system of organization on the universe, but it only works
after each unitary instant has passed. I can look at anything in T2
and say it was caused by anything in T1 with equal accuracy. The whole
idea of determinism is that there is another element that would
theoretically allow you to project into future instants.

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!!

To be fair, some pretty smart guys have had precisely this concern.
Einstein took this to his grave.

I agree that it is hard to have this discussion with morons like
Deepak Chopra running around telling everyone that he has a QM proof
for Hinduist spirituality. Ugh.

I don't state anything that isn't obvious and merely semantic!!
-Steve

 

[KILOWATT]

Why bugger about tarting up a bloody computer
with fancy lights. I cant see the point.

A computer is just a tool to do a job.

LUSER !!!

Anyone serious here at least about electronics? TIA

 

[Sam Goldwasser]

DigitalVinyl <reader@internet.com> writes:

Sam Goldwasser <sam@saul.cis.upenn.edu> wrote:


Could you realistically expect more? There's no way to test the rest of
the set without the power supply. It doesn't imply anything.

No I couldn't. However when I voiced my concern that after this I
could experience future issues (I've had long-term lingering issues
from heat damage in computer systems) he said no it doesn't work that
way. Once he fixes it there would be no further problems.

Crystal balling the future doesn't inspire confidence. If someone told
me they were gong to cover any issues in the next year or two that
would inspire confidence.
DiGiTAL_ViNYL (no email)

Will he give you any sort of warranty?

--- sam | Sci.Electronics.Repair FAQ Home Page: http://www.repairfaq.org/
Repair | Main Table of Contents: http://www.repairfaq.org/REPAIR/
+Lasers | Sam's Laser FAQ: http://www.repairfaq.org/sam/lasersam.htm
| Mirror Site Info: http://www.repairfaq.org/REPAIR/F_mirror.html

Important: The email address in this message header may no longer work. To
contact me, please use the Feedback Form at repairfaq.org. Thanks.

 

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 00:27:25 +0200, Guillaume <grs@mail.com> wrote:

My mind changes itself as it desires, and that changes because of cause
and effect, but the awareness called "I" is not in charge of that, any
more than yours is, since the sense of self is merely a superficial
product of deeper processes.

I can't believe we would read such propaganda in the 21st century.

You're using fallacies to try and prove that no one actually
exists as such.

Since you don't exist as an individual, why are you then trying
so forcefully to prove your twisted views about life? That doesn't
add up. If you're really congruent with what you're saying, somehow
you should immediately shut up and stop arguing.

Oh, but wait... no... you can't do that. You have no free will.
Some higher force just pushes you to pollute internet newsgroups.
How practical.

We can conjecture a newsgroup analog to Johnson noise in resistors.
Let's call it Walz noise.

John

 

[Badger]

On Sat, 5 Jul 2003 16:28:27 -0700, "bigmike" <bigmike@cornhusker.net>
wrote:

"Badger" <Badger@the.com> wrote in message
news:eheegv8c9uop5pap992d2ksb2tf8n0og1u@4ax.com...
On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 12:21:33 GMT, WM <wmsport-edit-@1st.net> wrote:

Well I don't know about you guys, but I do all my Service in-home,
and about 90% of it is a 1 trip Job. Only if I don't have the parts do
I have to make a 2nd trip. And by the way Sears has been doing
in-home service for years.

I carry quite a collection of Service manauls on my laptop, and with
the portable test Equipment , now a days, all most all the service can
be done in the home.

Mike

I would not want to do all my servicing in home nowadays. To many
intermintent problems, and repairs that require being on a bench to do
correctly, such as replacing surface components, LSI chips, or repairing
tuners. Unless your in a situation where you can carry most all the parts
and boards for a certain brand or brands of tvs, and all the service
manuals, it's just not an option. I also like letting a set that I fix run
for at least an afternoon before sending it home. Unless it's a RPTV, I much
prefer servicing sets on the bench.

Well I didn't say I prefer doing the calls in the home, as I would
like to do more in the shop, but for these BigScreen, its not
practical to be carring them in to the Shop. I have spent the last 20
Years working for Sears as both a Shop Tech, and a field Tech, Sears
closed there doors in my area, so I was forced in to early Retirement.
But I wasn't ready to retire. So its back to work for me. Started my
own business, and I like not having the overhead of a Shop, and so far
I have only had 3 sets that I needed to bring in to the shop, 2 were
Fluid leaks, and I needed to clean the board, and the other was a RCA
tuner problem, and I only had to bring in the boards, not the whole
set.

But your right I do prefer working in the shop, its just not
practical right now. Although I do have an alterntive! I am working
on a Shop in a Step Van right now, just for a little more flexabitly,
and I should have it going in just a few weeks..

Mike

I recently received a call from GE asking us
to become a warranty repair shop. After a few
questions the rep seemed to have no answer for.
Like how much will I have to spend to become
a GE warranty servicer. Purchasing service lit,
special test equipment, labor rates and how
they pay me. Home service came up.

They expect all repairs to be done in home.

Maybe I'm missing something but the days of
fixing these modern tv's with a soldering gun,
a multimeter, and a few simple tools is long
gone.

Granted all my Sencore equipment has handles
but I wouldn't consider it portable. My soldering
stations for surface mount and regular soldering
and desoldering practically take up a whole bench.

My laptop would handle the service lit. But even
with that hauling all this stuff into poorly lit
dark rooms will only result in a inferior repair
and broken test equipment.

According to the rep from GE all their service
centers are doing in home repair. So are any
of you guys? And if so how?

WM

 

[Badger]

On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 03:04:12 GMT, "Bill Jr" <bill@nospam.usa2net.net>
wrote:

Badger,
Each market area and business model has its separate requirements and
options that work best for them.
For our shop in our market area with 12-15 service calls per day average it
is impossible to setup shop in someone's living room and do a competent
repair and get to all the calls when necessary.
If you are a one man shop, working from your home (or low cost warehouse
space) and have quite a low overhead cost of doing business then it would
make perfect sense to do business as you do.
In a high production facility with high overhead and non-technical support
staff the time consumed trying to do actual component level repairs in the
home become overwhelmingly expensive. And this is without taking surface
mount technology into consideration.
This is why it important for each shop owner to take the time to evaluate
what is best for their particular business model.
Warranty work alone will never be able to support a high production
facility. Warranty work is considered a necessary evil to suffer through
while having the access to the manufacturers for product support, training
and technical assistance. Only when the product is out of warranty and the
customer wants to have guidance to an authorized facility does it make up
for the suffrage of low warranty rates and the hoops you have to jump thru
just to get an authorized repair paid for.

On the other note, Sears even closed their carry-in service center in our
area and I've been told that they are doing so nationwide. Also, can you
tell me when was the last time you heard someone praise Sears consumer
electronics repair? Their trip charge to show up at your door is now $95.00
and if it isn't a simple board swap then the estimate will be so excessive
as to get you to just shop for a new set, which they will gladly sell you.

You got that right, But being a Sears tech for so long, I got to see a
lot of what they did to there Cust base, and your right, but then they
are paing for it now. Sears as a Company was bad, and there isn't a
lot of good words for the company, but on the other hand there was a
lot of good Electronic Techs that came out of Sears. I have beed in
the Field now of over 35 years, and 20 years with Sears, and there
wasn't a lot of Board replacement allowed, it was all Board level
repair, It wasn't untill the HDTV came along that Sears started
Replacing Board. And 12 - 15 calls a day( in the shop) was not
unheard of. but on my own, I find that I can do 10 - 13 calls in the
home in a day. Granted it makes for a long day. And my recall rate is
very low, so for me, and my cust. its working out very well.

Sorry for the rant. Just couldn't help myself. It's getting frustrating to
be a consumer electronics technician these days.

Hey thats ok I have done my share of ranting about Sears, and the
enginers that build some of this stuff..

Mike AKA Badger

Good Luck,
Bill Jr



"Badger" <Badger@the.com> wrote in message
news:eheegv8c9uop5pap992d2ksb2tf8n0og1u@4ax.com...
On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 12:21:33 GMT, WM <wmsport-edit-@1st.net> wrote:

Well I don't know about you guys, but I do all my Service in-home,
and about 90% of it is a 1 trip Job. Only if I don't have the parts do
I have to make a 2nd trip. And by the way Sears has been doing
in-home service for years.

I carry quite a collection of Service manauls on my laptop, and with
the portable test Equipment , now a days, all most all the service can
be done in the home.

Mike

I recently received a call from GE asking us
to become a warranty repair shop. After a few
questions the rep seemed to have no answer for.
Like how much will I have to spend to become
a GE warranty servicer. Purchasing service lit,
special test equipment, labor rates and how
they pay me. Home service came up.

They expect all repairs to be done in home.

Maybe I'm missing something but the days of
fixing these modern tv's with a soldering gun,
a multimeter, and a few simple tools is long
gone.

Granted all my Sencore equipment has handles
but I wouldn't consider it portable. My soldering
stations for surface mount and regular soldering
and desoldering practically take up a whole bench.

My laptop would handle the service lit. But even
with that hauling all this stuff into poorly lit
dark rooms will only result in a inferior repair
and broken test equipment.

According to the rep from GE all their service
centers are doing in home repair. So are any
of you guys? And if so how?

WM

 

[Jeff]

"KILOWATT" <kilowatt"nospam"@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:39lPa.16829$Tx.820317@news20.bellglobal.com...

Hi everyones...thanks a lot to read! A friend built a new
computer from scratch and on his tower's front panel he's
having some nice decorative plastic tubes that are lighted on each
ends by blue leds. (See the following link...sorry for the bad quality,
those images are from my webcam!)
http://www3.sympatico.ca/kilo.watt/images/tower_front_panel.jpg

Thoses leds(4 in total,2 sets of 2 wired in series for each side of the
front panel) are connected to a small drive circuit board less that a
square
inch. Dumb as he is, he thought 1st they were CC fluorescent tubes so he
managed to remove the wires installed in the molex power connector
(standard type used also for drives) and connect them to the output of
a small box (that was surely designed to drive normal CC fluorescent
tubes)
wich vary the light intensity with ambient sounds. The second later after
power-up
the same box went in smoke he said,and since then the front panel's
doesn't get lighted anymore.
In fact after i bring the panel at home and checked it throughly...i saw
that all the 4 leds
are shorted (really shorted... by less than .2V of voltage drop!) wich is
not surprising
since those high voltage modules that drives CC tubes probably deliver a
few hundreds
of volts...i'm not sure about the exact value. What i find surpising is
that all the components
on the drive circuit are intact! Some pics and a schematic is shown on the
following links:
http://www3.sympatico.ca/kilo.watt/images/pcb-33.jpg
http://www3.sympatico.ca/kilo.watt/images/pcb-44.jpg
http://www3.sympatico.ca/kilo.watt/images/blue_leds_circuit.bmp

The schematic show the components that drives two leds in series, wich is
duplicated for two other leds on the pc board. By looking at this
schematic,
is seems like a simple 11.8V series pass regulator. What i'm wondering of
is why
they used such regulator...it seems overkill...current limit resistors
would have been
sufficient for such job because after all, the 12V line from the computer
power supply
is regulated don't you think so? Speaking of wich, the 47ohms resistor
seems
a low value and would give a lot of current to the expensive leds. But
i've read somewhere
that their forward voltage drop is significantly higher than other leds.
I've searched on the net
especially on store's websites like Digikey,and found that many operate
near 3.5V...is this
the standard? If two of those are connected in series, then the 47ohms
resistor might not be
of too low value after all. TIA for any replies.

--
Alain(alias:Kilowatt)
Montréal Québec
PS: 1000 excuses for errors or omissions,
i'm a "pure" french canadian!
Come to visit me at: http://kilowatt.camarades.com
(If replying also by e-mail, remove
"no spam" from the adress.)

You might consider using 4 per string on a 12V supply.
The last time I did this with blue I needed low current
and used a 680 ohm resistor to limit it to about 5ma
per LED, the strings would light as low as 9V and were
still safe at 16V.
With LEDs its better to play around with them as each
type has its own spec's and may need some tweeking
after the math works out.
Jeff

 

[Badger]

On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 12:24:44 GMT, "Leonard Caillouet"
<lcailloNOSPAM@devoynet.com> wrote:

Well said. Not a rant at all.

Whenever I have a complaint about my rates I suggest that the call Sears and
have them come out for $95 then call me back when they give them a
ridiculous estimate or obviously don't have a clue about how to fix the set.
It puts my $50 service call rate in perspective.

I do some in-home service, but only when I can reasonably expect that the
fix can be accomplished in one trip based on the symptoms. Otherwise we do
pickup and delivery or pull a chassis. To many repairs need extensive
resoldering and lots of related component checks and it is very difficult to
be thorough in the field. I opt for a better quality in-shop reapir when I
can. I have better equipment, better lighting, better time management, more
space, no dogs and kids, etc in the shop. When it is efficient, I fix them
in the home. Like Bill said, everyone has to figure out the most eficient
way to operater for himself.

Leonard Caillouet

Wow everybody is bashing Sears today. I have to admitt Sears is not
what it use to be, but they have only been BAD for the last few years.
(New manigment) Sears use to be a great place to work, Great Training,
Great Test EQ, and a very good work inverment. But like I said there
paying for it now. But you have to admit at one time Sears was the
Biggest compettitor in the market. They farm out a lot of there
repairs now, and Just about all the Electronic repairs in this area,
and many others. I am on the list to be a Sub Contractor for them in
my area, and the nice thing about it is I can charge Sears there
Rates, and they pay it. Of corse I have a differant rate for my cust.

Anyway the point is Sears is not all bad, there are a lot of good
people woring for Sears, and it won't be too long Sears will be gone
all together.. just my thought!

Keep your chin up, and try to find the good in everyone....

Mike

 

[Jeff]

Sorry I read that wrong, I saw the (Mazda?) part
number and the front ID number neither of which
is the model number that I need.
You can buy a S/M from united radio, they stock
them for sale.
Jeff

"Jeff" <frontline_electronics@NSatt.net> wrote in message
news:iTHOa.45454$3o3.3056131@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

Model number?
Jeff
"freetron" <lowsonp@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b2e74285.0307081330.16a4af24@posting.google.com...
I am looking for a good source of Repair/Service Manuals for a
Panasonic 1632 car radio, also knowen as Matsushita BR73 66 ACOA.

If anyone can help with a lead to a source I can take it from there.

Thanks in advance
Paul

 

[Michael A. Covington]

"Eyman" <user@anon.com> wrote in message
news:bel197$6g2uc$1@ID-198481.news.uni-berlin.de...

Hi,

Im about to remove my motherboard from my computer case to install a
heatsink fan.

Ive typically been using a standard non magnetised screwdriver in the
past,
but am thinking about using a magnetised screwdriver to remove and
install
the motherboard in and out of the case.

I know static electricity is a danger but will the manget effect of the
screwdriver stuff up my motherboard?

No. Keep it out of diskette drives, though.

 

[Choky]

shitty xpost.
I'm writin' from RecAudioTubes-where we also know and have SS amps,but we
are not so bloody pompous and too bloody smart.
stay in peace with your precious SS amps.
(point is that man wants to make something with own hands and brain,not just
to find 50W for 45 bucks.

--
Choky
Prodanovic Aleksandar
YU


"Precious Pup" <barking@wrongtree.org> wrote in message
news:3F0DD14F.D994F081@wrongtree.org...

Michael Floyd wrote:

Very interesting and amusing story - I actually enjoyed reading it,
but...

...I don't agree with your approach...

Nor I.

"George R. Gonzalez" <grg2@comcast.net> wrote:
I aquired this Bogen PA amplifier, 50 watts out allegedly, pair of
8417's
for output.
...
I go to order some new ones, and no matter where I look, they're
pricey--
$50-80 each.
...
Any ideas out there how this could have ever worked right?

Yes, throw it in the garbage and go to the store and get a new amp for
quite cheap. For even cheaper, get a
good cheap used solid state amp off ebay or a garage sale. You'll save
yourself money, time, and
aggravation. I'll bet you can get a dollar/watt, or thereabouts, for new
if you do just a little shopping.

 

[David Turrell]

Schematics got munged by google, perhaps because tabs were used.
Supplying schmatics with spaces only, to see if that will help.

As viewed from sci.electronics.repair
On Sun, 22 Jun 2003 09:56:03 +0000 (UTC)
dht+usenet@domain.in.sig (David Turrell) wrote:

Here are a couple of schematics.

J1 (A/C mains) S1 (on/off) L1 (transf) XF1(fuse)
____
(~)-------------o-o-------------nnnn------------/\/\-----
| |
Gnd Gnd



RT1 ? L2 T1

-------/\/\------------nnnn------------3|
L1 CR1> | | | | 3|

|C--------------> C36_? _C2 _C5 >R1 3|
|C | | > | |4700pF |470uF >10K3|
|C | C1_.68 >---------------- Gnd |200V | 3|
| | | uF > | | ??? 3|
Gnd | Gnd > C3_4700pF | 3|
| | | --------- 3|
| | Gnd | 3|
| | | 470uF 3|
| | S2 115/230V | C6 200V 3|
----------- C ------o-o------------- |-------??? 3|
| V1? | 3|
20ohms 2200pF| Gnd L3 3 3|
R54 C4 | RT2 ? 3 C37 ? 3|
Gnd---/\/\--| ----------/\/\---------------------| ---- 3|

--
David Turrell Domain: panix.com

 

[David]

Since everything else seems to be working in the tv set, probably just the
tuner/if/stereo module that connects to the cable. Definitely an in home
repair. Give several shops a call with the model number and an exact
description of the problem before they come out so they have an idea what to
expect.

It will save you between $50 and $100 in total charges if you can in any way
take the tv in for repair to the shop, in home costs more.

Typical charges for a Sony like that are the labor ($75 to $125) plus the
parts (most Sony tuner packs are around $130 give or take). Add the $50 for
the trips charges for in home to get a close idea of the total. This will
vary depending on where you live.

If you chose NOT to have it repaired due to the cost (it is borderline as to
fix it or not), many repair shops will pick the set up for free so you will
not have to pay the hazardous waste disposal to throw it away. Or post you
general location here so someone here might be interest can contact you,
include a contact email in the body of the text with something like
youremail.(^^ instead of the youremail.com so the Spam programs won't
recognize the email address in the body of the posting.
David

silvermoonwoman <Noemail@Noemail.com> wrote in message
news:r1ergv8jsc4ropofnksmuvna1ij22tcabm@4ax.com...

A surge came in last night on my cable line. Had some damage to both
the computer and the TV. Oddly it didn't hurt the cable modem, but
took out my ethernet card. It didn't damage the VCR (where the cable
line is connected) but damaged the TV (which was connected via an
output cable from the VCR). Its a 32 inch Sony KV32S45. Both the
computer and television had power surge protectors, but not cable
surge protectors

Here's what's happening with the TV. It doesn't seem to get an antenna
signal anymore. Snow on every channel when a stand-alone antenna is
connected to VHF/UHF. With the cable tv line, I get a slight ghost of
an image, the same picture on every channel.

I am able to connect the TV to the VCR with a 3-part RCA cable (video,
left, right) and get television reception from the VCR to the TV that
way. Picture and sound plays fine on the TV via Video 1. But because
of the distance between the TV and VCR this is a less than ideal
solution (taut wires stretching across the room). Also I have to give
up the VCR/DVD output to the my stereo when I use the output
connection for tv instead.

This is an extremely heavy tv set, I can't easily get anywhere for
repair. Does it sound like something that could be easily fixed?

Thanks,
Sheri