Toshiba TV29C90 problem; Image fades to black...

[silvermoonwoman]

Thanks guys, for the info. If I could get the tuner part (where would
I get it, direct from Sony?), is it something I might attempt to do
myself? I can operate a screwdriver

Regards,
Sheri

 

[Michael Black]

"Sofie" (sofie@olypen.com) writes:

their advertising didn't say that they had the correct answers..... just
answers

And I really get the feeling people pick apart that slogan when they
wouldn't pick apart other company's slogans. And it is just an advertising
slogan, not a promise or some terms of agreement.

Which fast food chain had "Have it your way at...."? I haven't eaten
meat since 1979 and I sincerely doubt most fast food chains have much
of interest to me. But I don't nitpick on the slogan, accepting it
as an advertising slogan.

A local music store (and I suspect it's used elsewhere) use to say
"If we don't have it, you don't need it". Surely there were items
that you couldn't buy there that some did need, yet nobody attacked
the slogan.

This nitpicking is there in that earlier bit about the triac. People
are expecting the store to have a higher standard of knowledge then the
nitpickers themselves.

And that's what I find fascinating about these threads about Radio Shack.
There seems to be some reason that puts a target on the chain, and then
all the nitpicking comes out. But it doesn't seem to be the initial points
that drive the nitpicking, it's as if there is some reason to pick on the
chain, and then people find reasons to find fault with the chain.

Their parts are overpriced. I've known that since I was 14 years old and
first walked into a Radio Shack. Yes, they have limited stock. But
while both are things to gripe about, I really can't see where they
instill the hostility towards the chain that we see in these threads.
I simply didn't buy parts at Radio Shack, unless I was really stuck (or,
when they were clearing out things at which point I stocked up on some
nice parts at a low price). If Radio Shack decides not to sell parts (which
seems to be the case here in Canada for a number of years), it doesn't
make me angry at the chain, it simply makes me a little sad about what
caused that decision.

Michael

-------------------------------------


"Dave" <galt_57@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5591d176.0307110725.a8776d9@posting.google.com...
"Tweetldee" <dgmason99@att99.net> wrote in message
news:<8gEOa.45170$3o3.3038791@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...

You're correct in what you say about the change in direction for RS.
But,
in all political correctness, they need to change their advertising.
"You've got questions; we've got answers" doesn't convey the image that
I
have (and have had for many years) that when I have a question at RS, I
get
blank stares, or even worse, wrong answers. [...]

Yeah, I laughed when I first heard that ad. I am not a RS basher but
rather a supporter, for in a great many places they are the only local
source of simple electronic parts, however their advertising people
need to get a clue. They most certainly do not populate their stores
with technology experts. Now maybe if they had started a call center
to answer these questions they would have a leg to stand on.

 

I had to repair my ice maker for the same symptoms. Either no-fill or
inadequate fill. The problem was the timer motor contacts for the
solenoid were burnt and corroded. Crappy design reminiscent of
failure prone washer machine timers.

Anyway, the problem was very obvious as soon as the face of the
icemaker was removed. I cleaned up the contacts and used some epoxy
to fill in where the surrounding plastic melted. Been working for 4
years since that repair.

One other warning: Unplug the fridge before you remove or work on the
icemaker. There is 120 volts on the internals and the connector
(which may or may not be adequetly protected against prying hands).

-Chris

 

[Bart Bervoets]

According to some online docs, this is a common fault with this monitor.
They speak of a transistor in the hor stage, only to find where...
I could use a schematic, anyone who has this?

Bart Bervoets
"Jerry Greenberg" <jerryg50@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:3F0EE57A.3030404@hotmail.com...

Bart Bervoets wrote:

Pincushion is on maximum, you can adjust in the osd, but the screen will
not react on it.
As well any adjustments related to horizontal (h width, trapezoid...)
don't
work.
Anyone here seen this before?
I had several of these monitors in the past, all had an exellent picture.

Bart Bervoets





I have had these problems in TV sets. I found anything from bad caps,
to semiconductor devices.

--

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
==============================================

 

[Mindwipe]

so no then
thanx guys the sarcasm was more forthcoming than the help,no wonder this n/g
is struggling,too many wankers putting people off

 

[Thinker]

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

Carlos Antunes wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
news:3F0B7ACA.3834@armory.com...

You're a complete moron. Determinism isn't a conspiracy theory!
Go get an education someplace, dummy!


Oh boy, this moron is living in the 19th century. Never heard of quantum
mechanics, it seems.

Carlos Antunes
-------------------
If you'd actually read anything about Determinism, you'd discover
that QM/Uncertainty has absolutely nothing to do with it. 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. Every
single moment and event is the reuslt of cause and effect, 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.

To obviate determinism you'd need alternate realities you could jump
between at will, or, for mind to have the capacity to believe you
were elsewhere than you are and seriously believe it as certainty,
which would instantly render you psychotic, catatonic and insane in
this reality.

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

Steve: If you have no free will that's OK. Free will is something so far
above your level of comprehension that I can understand you saying that
people don't have it. Actually you may not have free will. Yours may be so
clouded with fears that it has gone dormant and may never be revived.

As for the rest of us: Most of us have free will whether we use it or not.

--
-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

 

[Don Lancaster]

Precious Pup wrote:

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.

If you really want that vacuum tube sound, you can get it simply by
using barbed wire to conntect the speakers of an ordinary solid state
amp.

Full details at http://www.tinaja.com/glib/marcia.pdf

--
Many thanks,

Don Lancaster
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
voice: (928)428-4073 email: don@tinaja.com fax 847-574-1462

Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com

 

[Bob Shuman]

Chris,

Thanks for the precaution. Yes, the schematic clearly shows the 120VAC is in
the ice maker. My design must be slightly different since the motor turns a
small plastic gear which turns a larger gear which has a cam with a raised
lobes that activate the three microswitches referenced in my previous
posting. I did remove the face plate and did a quick check of the 3
microswitches with the power off and an ohmmeter and they all seemed to work
fine when depressed with my finger. As I also noted the motor appears to be
turning. It appears to turn fairly quickly (equivalent to maybe a
revolution in about 4 or 5 minutes) for the portion of the cycle when the
ice gets ejected from the mold and then slows down for the remaining half
cycle or so. This leads me to believe it is working properly.

I just need to get more time when the unit is less full to troubleshoot the
ice mold heater and thermostat. Thanks again to all for the assistance.
I'm certain this will get solved, I just need to get the time and empty the
unit more to work in there.

Bob

<chris@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:5tttgv4mrtv2pggnhtupa5i7cn8h8slnsj@4ax.com...

I had to repair my ice maker for the same symptoms. Either no-fill or
inadequate fill. The problem was the timer motor contacts for the
solenoid were burnt and corroded. Crappy design reminiscent of
failure prone washer machine timers.

Anyway, the problem was very obvious as soon as the face of the
icemaker was removed. I cleaned up the contacts and used some epoxy
to fill in where the surrounding plastic melted. Been working for 4
years since that repair.

One other warning: Unplug the fridge before you remove or work on the
icemaker. There is 120 volts on the internals and the connector
(which may or may not be adequetly protected against prying hands).

-Chris

 

[N. Thornton]

Hi Kevin.


A couple of your comments indicate to me some miscommunication still
on what I'm discussing here. For clarity I'll give a quick overview to
make sure we're both on the same page.


1. there is a standard form produced for doctors and specialists


2. It is to be filled in when they come across a clear positive result
that they consider out of the ordinary, unexpected, ie in a small
percentage of cases.


Lets spin 3 examples:

2a. A patient they'd been treating with severe depression, with little
result, and held no hope for. The person rarely washes or shaves,
shows practically no interest in anything. Patient has been written
off by the DSS as being incapable of work for life. Specialists have
said basically there's nothing more we can do, if he tries suicide
again we'll admit him to a psych ward long term for his own safety.

The patient isn't seen for a while, and comes back one day with an air
of confidence, a clean suit, a job, a calm attentive and positive
attitude, a whole new perspective on thier previous problems,
interests, friends, life plans, and lots of smiles. Person says
'well, I did this, and the problems all gone now'. The doc says, wow,
what a change! All the depression indicators have gone. At this point
the form gets used.


Example 2b: a patient being treating with life threatening asthma,
regularly admitted to A&E for emergency treatment, on strong drugs
which dont seem to be controlling the problem effectively. (A&E = ER)

Doc hears nothing for a while, forgets about patient, then one day
they come in and say the problems all sorted now. They say 'nothing
helped until I took linseed oil, now its just not a problem. I havent
been to A&E for 8 months now.' Doctor checks NHS records, and indeed
they have not needeed A&E in the last 8 months, or even any
prescriptions. Breathing flow rate test shows full recovery. At this
point the form gets used.


Example 2c: a patient being treated with chronic severe eczema, has
seen all the specialists, picks up scripts for creams regularly, often
treated for secondary infection.

Doc hears nothing for a while, forgets about patient, then one day
they come in and say 'Look, no more eczema! Nothing helped until I
stopped eating dairy products, been just fine ever since.' Doctor can
see they no longer have any eczema. Doc checks NHS records, and they
have not had any prescriptions for 6 months. The form gets used.


3. These forms are filled out for all conditions, not a small
selection of conditions. Any surprising positive result is reported,
regardless of the condition.


4. The data is collated centrally, and any results that stand way
above the noise level are looked for.


5. Any strong positive results indicate a reason to do a more in depth
controlled trial on anything found - they obviously do _not_ indicate
something should be used in clinics! That is well down the line.


I hope this is clear.

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.

Correlations by themselves have little value. Correlations have to be
shown to be *causative*.

That comes later. Strong correlation is generally sufficient reason to
do the further in depth study. 30,000 successes out of 50,000 attempts
is of value for that.

I agree that you can use
this as a starting point for further investigations,

Good!

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.

This has evolved precisely because it was recognised that
the prior methods had seriously failings.

Correct. What is incorrect is to imagine those prior methods to be
useless. How useful they are depends on various factors, and it is
really quite easy to show that in some cases good useful results are
obtained - and in some nothing is obtained.

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.

One has no real idea how reliable it is at all. There are too many
places where the results could be totally meaningless.

There are expected to be some. It will be less reilable than a similar
but controlled study, but that does not zero its usefulness.
Controlled medical studies arent too reliable either btw. This
approach has both pros and cons compared to controlled medical
trials.... another time tho.

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.

I agree, if you see strong correlations, then this should warrant
further study.

Good!

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.

Thats not what I'm saying. I meant one off by not working on all
individuals, only a few individuals.

For example, my twin brother suffered with severe eczema for around
25
years, from birth. Continually scratching. It was horrendous. His
skin
was a mess. Nothing helped. His life was utter misery from it. One
day
he decided to go completely vegan, that's is no animal products
whatsoever. After around 3 months, he noticed that he was no longer
scratching. He was cured, and has been ok now for the last 20 years.
On
occasions he has inadvertently taken animal products, in all cases he
now has a severe allergic reaction confirming that food was the
problem.

So, this method worked for him, will it for others?

If a method works often enough for it to rise well above the noise
then it would be picked up by what I'm discussing. If it doesn't, it
won't. No problem there. This approach will never pick up on the ones
that have just a 3% success rate.

The truth is no-one knows what success rate veganism gives for eczema.
No company stands to make out of studying it. But the NHS does. This
is true with many conditions and treatments. I have come across a lot
of people who have resolved their own problems when they were
considered to be beyond help. There is potential there.

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.

This makes no sense. Without controlled experiments you have no idea
what you've got. Its 101 science.

I think you're making assumptions there. Read on. (BTW this method is
already used here to detect potential carcinogens)

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.

The data could all be Swiss cheese.

IRL with a large number of results some will be and some wont. You get
to assess the noise level and look for anything that rises well above
it.

The literature is filled with erroneous "studies".

Thats right, and this is why controlled studies are normally demanded.
What is not taught in your science 101 is just why so many controlled
(and uncontrolled) studies produce junk results. When you address some
of the problems you can get uncontrolled results with a useful
probability of correctness. You can argue on that, but its been done,
many times. I'm trying not to get too much into all that here.

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.

You can pick any one off the cuff example you like, but it means
nothing
to the principle of doing good science.

It means that uncontrolled studies do turn up results some of the
time. Its a known fact. Its also known there are ways to improve the
odds, particularly by using large numbers of test results from a wide
variety of sources.

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.

You doing that condescending one-upmanship again.

no, I'm just wanting to avoid going down that path. Like I said there
is a whole nother threads worth to this branch-off. We have enough to
discuss just in this one. Suffice it to say very briefly that
controlled studies are not the research cure-all hoped for. The
proliferation of controlled studies with duff results in medicine
shows controlled medical studies to be unreliable too. While your
point about what a controlled study gives you is sound in theory, it
isnt like that in practice. There are serious issues with controlled
medical trials. But no more diversion.

If I just wanted to be condescending I'd say ho-hum. I don't want
to because I prefer discussing, and I realise everyone has plenty of
room to learn, me included. Sometimes assumptions are wrong. I'm not
being condescending, the same basic truths are so for all of us.

The scientific method
is not something one learns "blindly". This is exactly what the
method
is designed to eliminate. Its a process to ensure that what you think
you have, is what you have.

We know that, but I dont think thats the point here. Not all things
are practical to do controlled studies on. You're then left with 2
practical options: dont study it, or study it uncontrolled and accept
the failure rate, and use your positive results as preliminaries for
tighter studies when warranted. That is perfectly valid science.

When peoples welfare is at stake, its even
more relevant then in the inanimate sciences.

Directly, no-ones welfare is at stake. An uncontrolled study can only
be used to pinpoint any strong trends that indicate a few methods
deserve more thorough investigation. That is not putting anyones
welfare at stake, as you seem to suggest.

Indirectly, welfare comes down to which is the cheaper method per
result of finding a new treamtent. If an uncontrolled across the board
collation picks up on one effective treatment it will have done so at
a relatively low cost compared with the currently popular methods. If
that treatment is one people get to go and do themselves without the
NHS paying specialists or drugs, even better, more payback.

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.

I don't discount non controlled studies out of hand. If they indicate
significant promise, than that is an argument to do the studies
correctly.

Exactly. We agree on that key central principle.

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.

Doubt it somehow. Things usually mushroom out of hand.

It is routine that the doc gets to see the patient later, and patient
tells them about their result. And often they do a proper assessment,
and often not. It is routine that the result goes on the medical
records.

Costwise it is only a small percentage of people who have found such
cures. Confirming and completing the paperwork takes one 10 minute
visit. The suggested data collation is pretty basic. As for further
development, the NHS already pays for massive amounts of R&D,
billions, by buying new and still patented drugs. If 0.1% of that
spend is diverted into a process that produces a total of 3 treatment
approaches then it is ahead.

There is simply too many claimed cures to pursue any.

That's what showed me you hadnt understood the idea.

Waiting lists are way over a year
for many treatments in the UK NHS.

For a few yes, but how is this relevant? Long waits are more political
and managerial than financial.

What does need changing is a specific form is required for this, to
make this data clear and mass-harvestable.

Oh dear...another form...I don't think that you have really thought
this
through.

Valid criticisms can be accepted, but 'oh dear' doesnt count as one.

The system don't have it.

Wrong again.
1. It takes no fortune to run a small data collection point and
issue
the forms.

I don't agree. Its extra staff. Every expenditure requires good
support
for it.

Yes... we seem to agree there.

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.

But you cant determine what will actually pay out in the end. You
assuming that you choose correctly in what your studying. Most won't
pan
out. Its the way life works. There are 1000's of different medical
conditions that all need cured, selecting one, e.g. such as
depression,
is a choice that not many will take.

Hopefully you're clearer now on what's being put forward.

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.

Arguable, depression is a non issue for the NHS. They can simply send
depressed people away. Maybe it costs society money in the long run,
but
that will have little impact on NHS policy.

That would be politically unacceptable here. The current edge of
political cost-cutting debate is whether or not sex changers should be
made to pay for their treatment. This is not America

You proposal is really a dreaming proposal.

Its a discussion on a newsgroup, not a business proposal I have any
personal intention of getting involved in.

Nice idea, but will never work.

First I'm hoping you are clearer about what it is now. If you still
think it'll never work, guess what, its already been done on a smaller
scale, and has found results already. Once folk realise there's a
cheaper way of finding working treatments than what's popular today,
this approach will in time become used. Its simply an intelligent and
more efficient approach. Now I dont think it'll be done any time soon,
but in time:

a) a more realistic perspective will be applied to
controlled/uncontrolled medical studies (neither of which are
especially reliable IRL).
b) more awareness will develop of just how many lay people have found
their own successful treatments (many)
C) and as this concept continues to get applied on a smaller scale its
value will become steadily more realised.

Things are already moving in the direction such that all the ground
conditions are being gradually set up now.

It don't take into account the way real life works. Every one is
competing for limited resources, with there own pet agendas.

I know. As the value awareness of this increases, it will end up on
someone's agenda at some point. There are folks who stand to gain from
it after all.

I don't
think you understand just what it takes to get an organisation to go
and
spend money, especially one like the NHS.

We haven't even addressed that question, so I see no base for this
criticism.

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.

I did not suggest this. Its the people that implement/recommend the
cure
that has the liability. If something goes wrong, people get sued. Its
that simple.

No they dont, our laws are different to yours.

Secondly your point is relevant to the studies that are done on safety
before a treatment is used clinically. It has nothing to do with the
phase of the process I'm discussing here, ie collecting data and
looking for potential.

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.

No, you missed it. Why would you think I was referring to the data
collectors?

I didnt, its obvious you weren't. I gathered you thought I was
proposing that initial study data be used to recommend tratments to
clinic patients, which is certainly not what this is about. That would
not be a sensible proposition.

Any clinical treatment would need to be well investigated before being
recommended to doctors and patients, and established to be
sufficiently safe. I think thats fairly obvious. The process from
first study to final use involves a bare minimum of:

1. initial data collation to find any potential treatment
2. controlled trials to investigate the look-goods more rigorously
3. trials to establish safety of such treatment
4. cost/benefit analyses, etc.

Going thru the correct procedures eliminates suing over here, and
keeps your U.S. sue risks down to current medical levels over there.

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.

Unfortunately, only a few % will pan out. its the way its always
been.

Yep - in a different process. Bear in mind this process involves the
use of:
a) drugs that are already on retail sale
b) non drug approaches
etc, so some of the work associated with todays new drug trials has
already been done, or doesnt need doing.

If we get a few % it will in fact be quite fortunate.

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

Indeed. Wishful dreaming...

I think it will happen in time, things are moving in the direction
such that all the ground conditions are being set up now. Time will
tell for sure.


Shit, I got to ban myself from this for a while, this took way too
long. Nice discussing again. I'm sure we'll have more when curiosity
gets the better of me. It always does.


Regards, NT

 

[Z]

Thanks everyone for the help.
After disassembling televisions / washing machines which were in the
street for the garbage collectors and not obtaining a suitable piece of
track (due to coatings and tropicalisations) I bought the conductive
paint / track repair fluid [for the DMM repair].
It did the trick, however pretty soon after [rather immediately after
when I was re-assembling and my sausage fingers got in the way] the
wiper blades broke. Instead of throwing even more money after bad I just
got myself a new meter.

In article <2%qP9.7965$3r1.7382@news.bellsouth.net>, jakdedert
<jdedert@bellsouth.net> writes

Are there still sources for self-adhesive pcb traces and pads? I never used
them, but some company used to sell them for prototyping simple circuits.
You just laid your circuit out on a breadboard or phenolic blank, and stuck
the copper where you wanted it.

Might work, if you can find it.

jak
"Jim Yanik" <jyanikX@kua.net> wrote in message
news:Xns92F1D96961024jyanikkuanet@204.117.192.21...
"Mjolinor" <mjolinor@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:BwUO9.259$Ux4.10759@newsfep1-gui.server.ntli.net:


"Z" <post@imaZZZZris.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:+I0iIWAJI9C+EwG5@imaris.demon.co.uk...
In article <3E0B6035.F802D271@mfi.net>, Michael A. Terrell
terrell@mfi.net> writes
Z wrote:

I have a multimeter which is broken. One of the pads has lifted
from
the
board and I was wondering if conductive paint was any good to
repair such problems. The difficulty is that the track that has
lifted is
where
the sprung blades from the rotary switch meet the PCB. There will
obviously be quite a stress on the repair with a sprung contact
moving over it all the time. There is nothing to anchor any other
type of repair to unfortunately.

Would conductive withstand this sort of treatment?
Where could I get conductive paint? (I am in UK)

Maybe it's just time I got a new multi-meter.
Any recommendations?
--
Z

If the foil is still ok you might glue it back down.

Thanks.
The bit of foil is long gone.

I have found
conductive paint to be soft and that it chips easily so it would not
be a good choice. It can be used in some places to repair a broken
or corroded trace at low current, and where it won't be flexed or
stressed.


you can use the conductive paint to glue a copper (piece of tinfoil)
where it should go but you need to do it immediately the glue is
applied because it skins over straight away. If you have some then you
can put acetone on the replacement disc and it will dissolve teh skin
on the conductive paint that you put on the PCB then evaporate.





I'd use cyanoacrylate (CA) glue before I'd use conductive paint as a
glue,to glue down a PCB contact pad. You may be able to salvage a pad from
some junk PCB. I used to do that at TEK.

--
Jim Yanik,NRA member
remove X to contact me

--
Z
Remove Zeds in e-mail address to reply.

 

[LASERandDVDfan]

Not only that but the alignment checks are all automatic.

The only adjustment one can make with the drive is with the laser gain. -
Reinhart

 

[LASERandDVDfan]

I do have some systems that appear to have overheating problems. Is there a
repair I can do to stop/lower the chance the system will overheat.

Technically, the system doesn't actually overheat, especially if it was played
in a desirable environment. But the drive was simply not suited to operate at
the internal temperatures that the Gamecube is expected to operate at.

The Gamecubes that give the disc read errors do it immediatly on start-up.
Not after they have been running and warming up.

That can be an indication of the same problem at an advanced state.

I've found a few posts referring to adjusting the
alignment on the Gamecube laser assembly, however I have not been able to
figure out how to do this. Any suggestions you might have?

Not many, I'm afraid. As one poster has mentioned before, there are no actual
pots to make adjustments with the exception of laser power. But readjusting
the laser power in this case won't do you much good.

Gamecubes having disc read problems are most likely going to have a defective
optical pickup, and repairing that problem may require replacement of that
part. - Reinhart

 

[Chuck Harris]

Geeze Don!

When you're get sick with the SARS, and have that high fever,
you really should put your laptop away, and give writing
a much needed rest.

-Chuck, WA3UQV

Don Lancaster wrote:

If you really want that vacuum tube sound, you can get it simply by
using barbed wire to conntect the speakers of an ordinary solid state
amp.

Full details at http://www.tinaja.com/glib/marcia.pdf

 

[Dave]

et472@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michael Black) wrote in message news:<bemrfm$6lv$1@freenet9.carleton.ca>...

"Sofie" (sofie@olypen.com) writes:

their advertising didn't say that they had the correct answers..... just
answers

And I really get the feeling people pick apart that slogan when they
wouldn't pick apart other company's slogans. And it is just an advertising
slogan, not a promise or some terms of agreement.

But why advertise a weakness? They should be aware of their own
inability to answer technology questions intelligently (unless it is
about a cellphone contract). They advertise the one thing they don't
have, which is a bit silly, but they hope it will bring in customers
and make sales, and maybe it does.

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Kevin Aylward wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:
Kevin Aylward wrote:


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.

Nope.
------------

Non-responsive.

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,

Your grasp of English is worse.
----------------------

Non-responsive.

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.

Indeed. No problem. I agree, there is only one final outcome.
---------------------------------

Hmmm, you didn't seem to before.

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.

Not at all. Its clear you is you are ignorant on the basics.
---------------------------

I have degrees and coursework that say that I am not.

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,

Yes. As I noted in my last post.
------------------------------------

Hmm, now you seem to have changed your mind.

it is NOT many outcomes at once for you in your
life.

Yes.
-------------------

Unspecific. Yes about WHAT?

A Many World Interpretation is a heuristic explanation of the
Heisenberg Uncertainty,

Again, if your read my post you should have noticed that I don't hold
much for MWI.
----------------------------

MWI is important in that it OBVIATES rather than answers many questions
that QM asks. It just does so so WELL that it cannot BE dismissed as
a major contender, even if you hate it.

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!

So what. Never claimed otherwise. The point is that this final outcome
can not be predicted. That is, there is no direct cause and effect.
-----------------

Prediction has nothing whatsoever to do with cause and effect.
Proof: If things operated on cause and effect before physics existed,
then prediction was obviously unimportant to cause and effect!!

Its
that simple. You need to read up some more on the fundamental basis of
QM
----------------------------

You need to stop saying things other than this postural line of bull
where you claim "divine" knowledge of QM but decline to state any
specific thing about it, while urging us to "read up"..

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.

Not at all. It is well known that QM does not predict the outcome of an
individual event, only probabilities for that event, the exception being
when the system is in an eigen state, in which case it will always be in
that state.
-----------------------------------

Well, not ALWAYS, but for the purpose of the experiment.

The unary outcome is composed of both constants and of eigen states
and of final states that were finally specific for the statistical
phenomenon. But QM has no need to predict an individual instance for
cause and effect to be operant. Whatever happens has happened, and
by the pure semantics of linguistic tense, it was always going to
happen, it was was/will be always/will have been as it finally
occurred. This is strictly semantic!

It is a gedanken experiment that is primary, you are forced to admit
that there is only one real outcome to any situation.

Never claimed any different. You need to learn to read my son.
---------------------------------

Your son has things printed on him?
No, you seem to me to have changed your mind.

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,

Ho hum.
----------------

Non-responsive.

whatever happens happens, and it is a UNARY result!
Once you admit that,

I did. However, this is not relevent.
------------------------

To what? We were speaking generally of cosmology for Gawd's sake!!

saying it was always going to happen is nothing
more than an obvious semantic.

You haven't a clue about QM at all.
---------------------------------

I know it doesn't obviate semantics.

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.

Nonsense. I see you have invented a new definition of determinism just
to support your political views.
-----------------------------------

No, not that I know, I simply understood it better than most. I have
read a number of philosophers who make the aame points that I have.
They cite lots of mistaken impressions and beliefs about Determinism,
simply because the absence of Free Will is hard for Xtians in western
culture to accept. It doesn't bother Eastern religions at all.

You confuse unique events with determinism. Determinism is simple the
ability to predict the outcome.
---------------------------------

Determinism has nothing whatsoever to do with physics or prediction.
It is a semantic truth about this place we live in. We all know that
events are caused, we experience it, we see nothing but it. We all
know that whatever happens is irretrievable, namely, that it was
always going to be so.

Unique is, well, only one possible. I
agree that to be deterministic requires uniqueness, but being unique
does not imply determinism.
------------------------------

If something is not caused to be as it has become, then it might just
change from how it has become back into something else. If it cannot,
then it is caused not to do 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.

Obviously you don't. Its clare that you don't understand that basics of
QM. That is, despite a unique result, outcomes are not deterministic.
-------------------------

You are then claming that while it happened, that you have reason to
believe that it might not have. I know of no possible proof for such
a thing in reality except the linguistic hypothetical that is always
meaningless and useless, the solely imaginary "what if" that is only
actually useful or instructive to us in other events in the future.

QM Statistics do not predict, as you said, other than in statistical
distributions. But in such a distribution we do NOT have one particle
assuming many final states, instead we have many particles assuming a
distribution of outcomes in different possible futures, or "many
worlds". But in this experiment no one member of the distribution ever
assumes more than one outcome state!! So where does your "might have
been - what if" come from? I see no basis for it, except MWI. And
that's because the only way to hypothesize these co-temporaneous
alternative realities is by MWI.

You simple cannot make a prediction, for example in general, about where
a particle will be. It has a finite probability of being in pretty much
any location.
--------------------------

But it only winds up in one, and it does so irretrievably. Now you
can complain that even measuring where it is makes it uncertain, and
while of course I agree, we know what we mean by this life we live
proceding APACE, and that it does so specifically with specific
outcomes. So whatever difficulty we have in measuring a particle is
basically UNIMPORTANT IF WE DO NOT HAPPEN TO BE MEASURING IT!! And
for us to live our lives we leave most things do what they will do
without our attempts at measurement. And what they will do finally
is their inevitable outcome in this reality. Whatever we DO interfere
with by measurement, we also create other onevitable effects, and
once again, it assumes final outcomes which are just as much part of
the inevitability. And any non-conscious agent of ours that attempts
measurements on physical processes is in the same boat. The net
outcome of our live is inevitable.

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

Not at all. It is you who can not rid your self of the classical idea
that events have direct causes. Those of us who have grown up a bit,
realise that the universe is much more complicated that can de
ascertained from piddling about in ones bedroom.
-------------------------------

And so you imagine what about my background? I have used many millions
of dollars worth of equipment on several campuses. But anyone who knows
anything about physics should view your denegration of what can be
accomplished in "one's bedroom" as indicating that you're an ignorant
dilettante.

I'm
telling you and the fact that they are totally compatible with QM.

And you are wrong. Plain and simple. Elementary QM desputes determinism.
-----------------------

No, only people with an elementary grasp of QM think so.
Go look at the discussions of Determinism by philosophers, and look
at who reveals their approach to be the most in-depth by their
reputation at logical discernment. You'll find that these same
folks are most aware of QM's effect on Philosophy, and that they
have found Determinism not actually touched at all by it, which
is counter to the POP understanding of such things.

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",

Oh...

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.

But this is entirely irrelevant as to individuals making their own
decisions, with a claim that they are pre-ordained. Individual outcomes
are not predictable under QM, therefore they cannot be pre determined.
------------------------------------

Note: "pre-determism" is NOT the same as Determinism.

Also, as said before: Determinism does NOT rely on prediction in any
way, shape, or form. It is a strictly semantic truth about reality.

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!!


You way out there arnt you...
-----------------------------------

If you're unable to read what I say without failing to understand it,
you run the risk that others can, and that they will judge you
ignorant.

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,

Yes they have, all of them. You obviously weren't listening.
--------------------------------------

Nope. Only a few pop book authors who are an embarrassment with their
simplistic grasp.

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!!

Of course they do. Its a trivial application of 101 QM.
-------------------------------------

Nope. Say how or stop making the claim. You won't because you
can't.

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

You state whatever supports your particular delusions.

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

Disingenuous.
-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

 

[Jason D.]

On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 09:33:33 -0400, Lee Babcock
<leebabcock@pathcom.com> wrote:

Eyman wrote:

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?

thanks in advance

Eyman

Why are you removing a motherboard to replace a heatsink and fan?
That's like shooting a canary with a canon!
Regards
Lee

This is true on old stuff (pentium & K6 stuff) era). Much less
pressure on strap and easier to remove by hand.

This is by neccessary when socket A and P4 stuff appeared; Can be a
blockage that tool or heatsink strap blocked by something else.
Secondly, gives better control and supports mainboard better by laying
mainboard on the table, (take care with static! While removing or
installing heatsink with high pressure strap, also this requires
tools. Also some heatsinks are bolt in.

Cheers,

Wizard

 

[George Buyanovsky]

"Kevin Aylward" <kevin@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message news:<D6zPa.15946$4O4.1764028@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net>...

I'll re-phrase. Standard QM, says there is no direct cause and effect.

You exaggerated:
Probably statement "there is cause/effect correlation" is more
appropriate

Actually everything is an interpretation the only important thing is
predictability power of my subjective perception of reality (other
people is part of this perception). From this point view MUI has
productive power.

--George

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Guillaume wrote:

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.
-----------------

Beliefs are the positions in the argument as to the nature of that
alleged "reality" of yours that you think is so obvious and isn't.

Every time a system of beliefs is put into any kind of
political system, it kind of inevitably becomes dysfunctional.
-------------------------

You mean like women's suffrage, banning child-labor, social security,
or national health care, or universal education, or what? You see,
you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

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.
---------------------------------

Nonsense. You cannot change the very tiniest belief, because your
beliefs ARE you, AND neither, similarly, can you lift yourself into
the air by your belt. Your mind may lie about having changed your
beliefs at your whim, but in fact, once you are caused to change
by experience, internal and external, and once you change you cannot
stop that either!!

If you COULD actually change what you think on a whim, that is, for
no actual "reason" which would have to persuade your mind into a new
inexorable belief that once again you could not change, why then you
could change your beliefs as to where and what you are, and you could
then immediately live in your fondest fantasy world and it would be
JUST AS ABSOLUTELY REAL as THIS one, you would be a GOD and this would
occur in mere seconds!! Meet the world of "Free Will".

We don't have "Free Whim", obviously, or we would be lost in a world
of our OWN making almost instantly, and then perhaps we would look
catatonic or totally chaotically delusional to the people left in
THIS world!!

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.
----------------------------

Nonsense, our minds are given reasons to do such things, but nor are
the things we are "given" to do limited to virtues, either, there are
just as many sick beliefs that have been abused into children's minds
which they suffer from absorbing. Only an ignorant knob would fancy
that it requires "Free Whim" believe what we have been convinced to
believe by experience, which process is just another simple example of
Deterministic Cause and Effect!!

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

I believe things, therefore I post them. If I was so stupid that I
had a flawed belief system like yours, and if I were affected by
silly points of view which induced my mind to change its beliefs by
simple obvious cause and effect, then obviously I'd stop posting this,
and I'd post some crap like yours, no doubt!!
-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]

Guillaume 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.
-----------------------

It's not propaganda, it's a respectable Philosophical System, defended
by many premier Philosophers. Quit being a disingenuous little posturing
piece of shit.

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

I'm using logic, and you simply don't like it. Refute it or accept it,
and quit being a blathering propagandistic little shit who postures
instead of thinks!!

Our existence is, in part, an illusion, but not an evil one, and at
least the dogma of this culture ABOUT individuation is flawed, and
that is the defect in western culture that makes it the abusive human
shit of the world.

Since you don't exist as an individual, why are you then trying
so forcefully to prove your twisted views about life?
----------------------

Obviously you must then be wrong about what I am. It's not at all
twisted, it is simply superior to yours, and you don't understand it.
I promote my beliefs, it requires no such thing as "Free Will" to
do so, cause and effect causes me to believe as I do just fine, thanks!

That doesn't
add up. If you're really congruent with what you're saying, somehow
you should immediately shut up and stop arguing.
---------------------

Since I don't, then obviously you must be wrong about the abilities
afforded by cause and effect.

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.
------------------------

There is no "higher force". My beliefs are a result of cause and
effect, just as cause and effect will destroy your society and evolve
a better one.
-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

 

[Guillaume]

Beliefs are the positions in the argument as to the nature of that
alleged "reality" of yours that you think is so obvious and isn't.

Where are you getting at?
You just seem to be one of those people who have a twisted philosophy,
claiming that there is no "reality", that everything is subjective
and therefore, than "anything goes". It's frightening, though.

Every time a system of beliefs is put into any kind of
political system, it kind of inevitably becomes dysfunctional.

-------------------------
You mean like women's suffrage, banning child-labor, social security,
or national health care, or universal education, or what? You see,
you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Can you try and write without being rude?

That aside, all of your examples above are twisted, and here is why:
none of them are simple "beliefs". They are justice. Fairness, if you
will. Fairness is not and must never be a mere "belief". It should
be an absolute amongst human beings, whether you like it or not.

Actually, the opposite of each of your arguments are (or were)
part of beliefs systems. Not giving women the basic right to
decide for themselves, now that was a "belief", and a twisted one,
based on twisted views of life and social power.
Abusing women or children, that's in no way acceptable. This is
not merely a belief of mine, this is a fact.

Fortunately, some people have fought for their basic rights for
fairness and freedom. I might be mistaken, but I'm not too sure
you would have been able to help them with your "cause and effect"
fallacies.

Nonsense. (... skipped ... )
We don't have "Free Whim", obviously, or we would be lost in a world
of our OWN making almost instantly, and then perhaps we would look
catatonic or totally chaotically delusional to the people left in
THIS world!!

What does it have to do with what we were talking about?
You're confusing "free whim" with "free will".
Actually, they are quite opposed to each other.
Having free will doesn't mean you can make things happen
the exact way you want. Whether you like it or not, you
are still confronted to "reality", this reality which prevents
you from "lift(ing) yourself into the air by your belt" - well,
at least until you figure out a practical way of doing it.
Clearly, this is part of what we can call reality, and clearly
this is not a philosophical matter either, because no amount
of philosophy will help you overcome it, despite what may be
taught in some ideological orientations.

Only an ignorant knob would fancy
that it requires "Free Whim" believe what we have been convinced to
believe by experience, which process is just another simple example of
Deterministic Cause and Effect!!

This paragraph fails to make any sense to me, am I the only one?

I believe things, therefore I post them.

This one is almost as pretty as the famous: "I think, therefore I am",
which may be famous, but is not actually as clever as it wanted to be.

If I was so stupid that I
had a flawed belief system like yours, and if I were affected by
silly points of view which induced my mind to change its beliefs by
simple obvious cause and effect, then obviously I'd stop posting this,
and I'd post some crap like yours, no doubt!!

Nice comeback, I wonder if you can do better?
You're ultimately resorting to insults, which is usually what happens
when everything else has failed.