Nah, the 220 wouldn't get very far, especially if the set was turned off.
I'd say that the OP's LEDs burned out in about a microsecond . Those
--- 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.
"KILOWATT" <kilowatt"nospam"@softhome.net> writes:
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.)
I was helping a guy repair a light controller board that consisted pretty
The circuit is that of a current source whose value is given by
If the needle is off by the same amount across the entire dial and the
could be a defective mode switch..
Wrong. You don't truly grasp QM. QM, in effect, states that multiple
Overblown nonsense, if that were true there wouldn't be any such thing
No one has to, we only need to know what we don't know and use THAT!
And that was because Einstein didn't like Uncertainty and maintained
You're quoting pithy pop media responses, not theory.
This is purest nonsense. You're worshipping here, not thinking.You need to get rid of this ingrained mindset, and understand what QM
truly claims. QM is something *new*. It cannot be explained by existing
thought process. Why should it? It contradicts what you previously
believed. You only believe in cause and effect in the way you do because
you were programmed that way in the first place
------------------------------
There aren't any such. None such are necessary.
You're trying to convince using a majority vote now? You'd LOSE!
I've chased a few of your posts around, and you seem to cite Ballentine
No, all you have specified is ignorance, not cause and effect. It is
You need to think outside of cheap physics bumper-stickers.
Okay, smarty-pants, do it. This is the SECOND time I told you that
Unnamed co-conspirators need not apply to help you.
You're just frightened of my Omnipsism (TM).
Ta-da!
And I'm telling you precisely that, just trying to get you to
I didn't say that variations account for statistical vatiance. I said
I DIDN'T say that indeterminacy was "explained" that way, it is simply
Much more deeper?
Nothing *I* believe is in ANY WAY "classical"!!
You're preaching to the minister.
No, it doesn't. You've never understood my Perceptual Phenomenlogy.
Do try to pay attention, will you: Not the classical cause and effect,
You don't get it and you won't pay attention. You're assuming that
And I'm trying to tell you that only single world cause and effect
I don't "believe" anything, it's against my religion.
I admit this form of speech is heuristic. But it is useful to explain
It is a heuristic that acknowledges it is undemonstrable, but it
Re-read what you just said. It's not even related to QM.
I never said that. I said they have other motivations too.
Irrelevant.
I didn't mean the Pathetic Fallacy, I mean cause and effect.
You don't know and I don't care.
That makes sense but it's still a mystery as to why they would use
If you know so little about electronics, you should leave the job to
Why are you removing a motherboard to replace a heatsink and fan?
I certainly understand what its basic premises are, however, as Feynmann
Nope. Qm is based on a few simple postulates. It says nothing at all
Not at all. You are confusing an ad-hoc add on to QM, called the many
Of course it isnt. This is pretty pointless. You simple have no idea
I'm trying to bring the explanation down to the level that you may be
Oh..Your the one spouting off that
With no idea that this is just a postulation, and not part of QM at all.
Nonsense. I am pointing out that MWI is not part of QM. It is not
There are no technical difficulty at all with the quantum ensemble
Nonsense. Lots of people have put forward objections in MWI.
Some things are debatable, some are not.
This is simply untrue.
That's right. MWI's is of no value. Its, essentially, untestable
Your off your rocker. I'll be happy to supply copies of my many pages of
Again, you miss a fundamental point of QM. Its not a matter of
They do, but you don't understand the consequences of what you are
You are.
Saying we don't happen to know is implying that there is information
No idea what your talking about. You claimed that MWI is not
Theoretically, I think that QM allows for the *finite* probability that
Ho humm...
Probably not. I wont lose any sleep over it.
The assumption has been adequately confirmed.
Crap. You don't understand even the basics of QM.
If you happen to believe in MWI. This is not the view that is accepted
So do I. Those with more money get to shag more often.
I'll re-phrase. Standard QM, says there is no direct cause and effect.
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/9703089
Yeah, I laughed when I first heard that ad. I am not a RS basher but
I agree 100%, Bill, but you have to remember that most consumers experience
Where do you get your statistics? Sounds pessimistic to me. We sell and
to semiconductor devices.