Toshiba TV29C90 problem; Image fades to black...

[David]

If all you can operate is a screwdriver, then no, it is not something you
can do yourself.
If you have experience working a temperature controlled soldering station
and desoldering around ultra small surface mount components and doing
circuit board rework, then maybe, as long as you had the training with the
safety aspects of working inside the tv set.

David

silvermoonwoman <Noemail@Noemail.com> wrote in message
news:7oqtgvc2svmp24duuo9qb5vrkikmcb54ff@4ax.com...

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

 

[Misanthrope]

On 10 Jul 2003 21:22:01 -0700, hewpiedawg@hotmail.com (ShrikeBack)
wrote:

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

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

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


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

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

There is something that we can show, and that is that the assumption
that all events are ultimately predictable is false.

That is not what is required for determinism -- that one be able to
KNOW what the outcome is. Basically you are confusing the
epistemological question of whether or not we could *know* what will
happen with the metaphysical question of whether or not what will
happen is predestined to happen.

---
Misanthrope

"All you have to do in life is die." And, most of us
don't deserve any more than death because the question
isn't "Do we really deserve to die?" The question is
"Do we really deserve to live?"

 

[bigmike]

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
news:3F0F5D9F.67E2@armory.com...

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!!

Abused into children's minds? That's about as far fetched as you can get
Steve.
We were all children at one time, and were brought up differently, according
to our families beliefs, views, and values. As we grow up, we learn about
other peoples beliefs, views, and values, and these also become part of who
we are as an adult. I wouldn't want it any other way. That is far from
abuse. Anybody that feels abused because their parents beleived in religion
or had other views that are were not based on scientific facts, needs to get
a life and quite whinning. I was taught both views as I was growing up. Fair
enough.

Steve, sorry buddy, but your idea that we do not have free will, is just
silly. You suggest that it does not support cause and effect, but it
absolutely does. Matter of fact, it proves it! When we change our mind about
something, there is a reason. Even if it's for no other reason, then we want
to change our mind. That's the cause. We are not preprogrammed, and the
future is not predetermined. But then again, you already know this, don't
you Steve?

 

[R. Steve Walz]

BigMike wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
news:3F0E3EDB.2149@armory.com...
BigMike wrote:

There are many situations where science cannot help people. These people
should not be left without any options, which is the case many times.
People
who have a life threatening form of cancer which is not responding to
medical treatment, many times will turn to alternatives, and who can
blame
them. If your going to die, why not try whatever you feel might help in
some
way. Depression is the same thing. If the medical profession cannot help
you, which many times is the case, especially when dealing with the
human
mind, then instead of waiting for the situation to get so far out of
hand
that it destroys lives, it's time to try other alternatives. The idea
of
selfhelp will power helping people overcome self-induced depression is
hardly a new one, but it is shunned to a degree, by professionals in
the
mental health field.
----------------------
That's because it doesn't work. The way to change people so that they
are more likely to feel better is to modify their responses, which
involves having an effect on them by what YOU do to them, not tell
them to do it themselves. If they could, they WOULD! We can change each
other, BUT we cannot change ourselves, because we ARE ourselves!

Who we are, is subject to change.
-----------------

But not by us, because a thing cannot change itself, we can be said
to change, but from other causes.

Since science beleives that everything is based around cause and
effect,
they always want to know the cause of the depression. That's where the
problems start for many people seeking help with depression.
--------------------------
Depression lifts when you find the cause and give them good orgasms.
If you try to talk them out of feeling bad without fucking them, you're
merely being dishonest.

You sound sexually frustrated Steve. Maybe that's you problem
-----------------------------

No, oversexed. ;->

Concidering the
complexity of the human mind, science fails many times when trying to
find
this "cause" and often mistakes the wrong events as the "cause".
------------------------
That's because western psychology is usually very stupid, puritan,
and useless compared to a good sex partner, or even just a friend
who halfway cares about you.

huh?
------------------------

It's true, it's very much less efficacious than friendships.

I have
learned from my own experiences that when dealing with depression,
finding
the "cause" can be far less important than finding help for the problem.
The
reason is that self-induced depression can be more a result of not
wanting
to deal with events in life, then the actual events themselves.
-----------------------
And if people could treat themselves for it, they WOULD! This MEANS
that they can't, since they don't and then talk about it on Usenet!

Most people do not chat on Usenet Steve. Unlike us, they actually have a
life
----------------

I type really fast.

Because of
my own past experiences with depression, I beleive there is not an
actual
cure for it, but rather methods that can be learned to control it.
Whether
we like it or not, we all have to deal with negative events in our
lives.
Learning how to deal with these events, past, present, and future, is
paramount in beating depression. Masking the events is not always the
best
approach, and can often lead to far more serious problems.

Nobody should have to suffer and not be allowed alternatives
treatments
for any medical or mental condition, simply because science does not
approve
of them.
--------------------------
Science, when applied by westerners to personal problems, isn't
as good as a good fuck.
-Steve

Your all class, Steve. LOL
-----------------------------

I think what I am is very very good, and as a confirmed violent
Communist, unrelated to "class".
-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

 

[Misanthrope]

On 10 Jul 2003 15:36:58 -0700, jasligon@msn.com (idlemuse) wrote:

"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.

What is being confused here is the model with the reality. If you
make several other philosophical commitments such as being a radical
empiricist, only then are you inclined to believe that just because
our currently most accurate model of reality has uncertainty
inherently built into it, then such uncertainty, to the best our
understanding of nature, must be inherently built into nature, itself.
I find it striking that physicists seem to so readily assume that
their random derivations mean anything while mathematicians are always
wondering the relevance of what they do. At least most mathematicians
can see a clear distinction between their a priori models and the
empirical world of sicence. I don't htink that most physicists do.
To them a mathematical derivation might as well be an experiemental
result.

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.

Personally, I think that anything more than compatibilism when it
comes to free will is philosophically naive. (And, for that matter
anything less is naive when it comes to moral philosophy, for that
matter.) Metaphysical determinism is something that any rational
person must accept on philosophical grounds and the only (really)
reason people run around rejecting it is because they simply lack
philosophical sophistication (actually education usually). (No
offense to the true philosophical non-determinists.) On the other
hand, the issue of will in moral philosophy drives us to a result of
compatibilism, and those that do not see that, I think, are also just
lacking a properly perspective on the history of ideas with regard to
moral philosophy. (Specifically, it is really hard to come to a
conclusion even like that something like the fact of metaphysical
determinism could generally render a relatively separate philosophical
subject largely moot and/or subjective.)

---
Misanthrope

"All you have to do in life is die." And, most of us
don't deserve any more than death because the question
isn't "Do we really deserve to die?" The question is
"Do we really deserve to live?"

 

[weisselk]

People seem to have a very limited historical understanding of things.
Look at a Bogen catalogue from the period this amp was produced. The
price of a MO 100a was something like $445, wholesale, in the mid
60's. This puts it on a par, pricewise, with comparable Mac amps.
Which now go for very big money. But Bogen was selling to industry, by
and large. So go figure the value ratio of build quality, design etc.
I sold an Audio Matiere amp two years ago that was a piece of garbage
compared to most Bogen stuff I've seen. It cost only $5400. What a
deal. You cannot imagine how badly that thing was designed. An A list
component, of course. Just a big joke.

George still has not said whether he recapped this amp, or just tried
to redesign it on the fly.

Jonathan

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Thinker wrote:

"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.
------------

You're not only disingenuous, but not too bright.
-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:

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

Nonsense, every argument I present is carefully constructed.
YOU simply find it hard to keep track!

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?
-----------------------------

I'm not rude. I define what rude is for me.

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

It isn't, and won't be. It would have to be a belief by a majority
that they aren't willing to compromise.

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

Nit-pickery: The opposite of a certain belief is a different belief.

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

You're a shit-fucking liar. Only a shit-fucking liar makes a claim
that someone is promoting fallacies without indicating precisely how
and then taking his lumps in argument.

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

I invented the term "Free Whim". So no, I'm not.

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

I gave you an simile by way of analogy.
Don't try to make it a metaphor just to be stupid.

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?
--------------------------

Since it's out of its context who would be surprised at your
distortion?

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

Unrelated to the who explanation, which you declined to deal with,
like the shit-fucking coward you are.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[R. Steve Walz]

bigmike wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
news:3F0F5D9F.67E2@armory.com...
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!!


Abused into children's minds? That's about as far fetched as you can get
Steve.
We were all children at one time, and were brought up differently, according
to our families beliefs, views, and values.
-----------------

Just like Islamic terrorists.

As we grow up, we learn about
other peoples beliefs, views, and values, and these also become part of who
we are as an adult. I wouldn't want it any other way.
-----------------

Then you don't REALLY believe that your pet religion or belief-system
could withstand the fair light of day without first brainwashing your
children into them, do you?

Garbage, you're a philosophical and religious coward.

That is far from
abuse. Anybody that feels abused because their parents beleived in religion
or had other views that are were not based on scientific facts, needs to get
a life and quite whinning. I was taught both views as I was growing up. Fair
enough.
-------------------------------

Garbage. I've heard your defensive crap before. You're all cowardly
little weasels.

Steve, sorry buddy, but your idea that we do not have free will, is just
silly.
-----------

Quite an argument there.

You suggest that it does not support cause and effect, but it
absolutely does. Matter of fact, it proves it! When we change our mind about
something, there is a reason. Even if it's for no other reason, then we want
to change our mind. That's the cause.
------------------------

Yes, but you do not get to pick and choose what you believe, it comes
with the inevitable outcomes of the physical world as your life
progresses. You cannot change your mind by an effort against your
previous belief. The whole idea of Free Will is nonsense. And whatever
finally happens was always what was GOING to happen!

We are not preprogrammed,
------------------

We are not preprogrammed, except by our life experiences.

and the future is not predetermined.
----------------------

No, it is Determined. Get smarter, look up the difference!

But then again, you already know this, don't you Steve?
-------------------------

Ridiculous. I'm not a liar. YOU are!
-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

 

[LuckyStryke]

"Alan Harriman" <vtech@usol.com> wrote in message
news:c0ttfvc9kvoue3s25iffpouoepb7ga9lgp@4ax.com...

I still can't figure out what type of connector my scope has for the
Vert Input. I went to the Shack to check out the "N" type and
the PL-259 connectors.

I believe you need a type 2501 connector, which was typically used on
older
microphones. It is a screw type connector similar to a 259, but has a
center dot
of solder for the contact. See
http://www.jt30.com/jt30page/connectors.html

Yes! That would be the connector. I've decided to replace it with a BNC
connector. I'm also wondering from where to where do I measure the
resistance of the connectors on this old scope? I've opened it up and
checked
all the tubes but have no idea where to make the measurement from?

Anyone offer any help on this?

 

[Asimov]

"Don Lancaster" wrote to "All" (11 Jul 03 15:09:00)
--- on the topic of "Re: Bogen amp, 8417 tubes blow up, the whole story"

No, that's how you get the sound of a silver face Fender Twin Reverb.
What you really want is coaxial gas lines with several hundred kw's
running through them. Anything solid state you connect them to will
sound like a tube amp.


DL> From: Don Lancaster <don@tinaja.com>

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

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


.... Techs would rather pee on an electric fence for the light show

 

[Asimov]

"Dave Widgery" wrote to "All" (12 Jul 03 00:54:11)
--- on the topic of "Re: speakers question (Apologies)"

Actually, this is common misconception of the novice studying
electronics. There is no such thing as "average power" because if you
average the voltage the result is ZERO!!!

Accordingly one can only speak of "average power" for a rectified
waveform. OTOH the RMS value is an integral function of the area below
the power curve which corresponds to an equivalent amount of DC power.

i.e. Same heating ability. Say you have a 100 watt lamp at 120
volts, whether you supply it 120 volts AC or DC doesn't make any
difference as the lamp will still dissipate 100 watts regardless.


DW> From: "Dave Widgery" <daveDOTwidgery@NOSPAMblueyonder.co.uk>

DW> A previous poster that had stated that RMS power was not a technical
DW> term and that average power was the correct term to use for the output
DW> power of an amplifier and that they amounted to the same thing, I
DW> stated that I did not believe that Average power and RMS power were the
DW> same and gave various reasons why. this started a minor dialogue going.

DW> After some research since then and I can categorically say that
DW> ............
DW> I was wrong, at least about the definition of average power, "average
DW> or effective power is exactly half of the peak power".

DW> as Ppeak is V max * I max

DW> Vmax * Imax Vmax Imax
DW> Pav = ------------------- = --------- * ---------
DW> 2 sqrt 2 sqrt 2

DW> as Vmax / sqrt 2 is called effective or RMS voltage
DW> and
DW> Imax / sqrt 2 is called effective or RMS current
DW> therefore
DW> Pav does = V(RMS) * I(RMS)

DW> Hence I was wrong about average and RMS power being different things.
DW> but "n watts RMS Power" whether technically incorrect or not is and
DW> has been the key standard for specifying the output power of an
DW> amplifier. (however irrelevant it is)

DW> Dave

.... No electrons were harmed in the posting of this message.

 

[Nadir]

Thank-you to Dan for the link to the service manual scans, I never
would have figured this one out otherwise. I first replaced IC501
C1883CT, the H/V Control unit. It looked as if it had the identical
problem, excepts playing with the on screen controls I could now
almost stabilize the picture. Which means maybe I didn't just waste
$25. I carefully traced the vertical signal to Q401 which is used to
switch the v-sync on and off. Turns out the tiny surface-mount
transistor Q401 was also bad but tested OK with the standard diode
test. All-in-all a seemingly simple repair that turned out near
impossible.
zen_nadir@hotmail.com (Nadir) wrote in message news:<4dde1835.0306231854.30f7cb62@posting.google.com>...

I have a Viewsonic P810 (Chassis 21HV8SA) monitor with a vertical sync
problem. Based upon some testing I have determined that the
vertical-sync may not be reaching the vertical output IC. I need the
pinout of connector N1002B, which connects the cable input daughter
board with the main board.

With no signal applied the "No Signal" test screen comes up clearly.
I can turn up the brightness on the flyback and see that the raster
fills the screen with no noticable distortion. However when I use
either the BNC or Dsub input, the video has no vertical hold. About
3 or 4 rapidly rolling images fill the screen. If I bring up the OSD
it sits in one place with only some flickering. The problem occurs at
all resolutions and refresh rates.

So far I have checked all the electrolytic caps in the vertical
section, none were bad. I then replaced the vertical IC490 (STV9379),
C409 (470nF, 100V Mylar) and C498 (56nF, 100V, Mylar). This had no
effect. I figure I may be able to bypass the mechanism which switches
between the d-sub and bnc inputs then I could isolate which component
is not passing the v-sync signal.

Any help is appreciated. Thanks

 

[Sofie]

NeoVolt:
Depending on the meter's resistance it might work...... give it a shot.
Obviously the first place to start is to determine the meter's compatibility
with the task you want it to perform. Go to the website that you found and
start the process. Good luck.
--
Best Regards,
Daniel Sofie
Electronics Supply & Repair
-----------------------------


"NeoVolt" <NeoVolt68@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:BhMPa.54$zN4.5@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...

I have a couple old meters taken from an old stereo that I hope to use
in a new project. They were originally for measuring the left and right
speakers and are labeled "VU Left" and "VU Right". I found this site
http://members.shaw.ca/roma/twenty.html , which has info on metering
power supplies and finding a meters resistance.

Would it work with the two meters from this old stereo? I've got some
software which will let me print out new faces for the meters and would
rather not spend $15-$20 on new meters.

Any help?

NeoVolt

 

[RWatson767]

Help with an old O-Scope

Yes! That would be the connector. I've decided to replace it with a BNC
connector.

When Tek switched form the UHF connector to BNC they was a replacement
connector to do this with. I had the same mounting pad as the UHF but was a BNC
jack. It would probably be tough to find any.
Bob AZ

 

[KILOWATT]

Hello all!
Frank your absolutely right...it's a contant current source
and i tested it tonight(with cheap red leds...not the expensive
replacement blue leds!) and it regulates the current so it provides
a constant 17mA approx. to the blue leds from 6.5V and up.(below
that of course the leds begins to glow dimly because they start to
operate under their normal operating voltage,wich is about 3.2V(X2
in series) ) The circuit nominally operates @12V...it can operate up to
14V in fact. But higher than that...excessive power dissipation begins.

It regulates the current pretty well...especially for such a simple circuit.
It varies from 17 to 20mA for the range of 6.5~14V. I was very
surprised when i tested it (1st wich cheap reds leds) to see that it survived
the thousands volts from the inverter's output where my friend "accidentaly"
plugged it.
Sam wrote:

That makes sense but it's still a mystery as to why they would use
zeners at all unles the manufacturer got a great deal on them. I can't
imagine such a circuit caring about super stable performance with
respect to temperature.
Yes Sam...it's probably a large batch they got and they decided to use them

this way(forward biased). To finish...the front panel is now lighted just as it
used to be...and my friend is proud again of his modded computer case!
Thanks a lot to all of you for the usefull replies.

 

[Kevin Aylward]

R. Steve Walz wrote:

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.

And where was this alleged assertion?

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.

Degrees don't means you understand what you pasted down from memory.

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.

You are stupid, fail to comprehend simple English, or a liar. Which is
it?

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

Yes.
-------------------
Unspecific. Yes about WHAT?

Oh.. you seem to be stupid.

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.

I disagree.

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.

In does. Probably too subtle for you.

Proof: If things operated on cause and effect before physics existed,
then prediction was obviously unimportant to cause and effect!!

Dah...Jesus wept dude. And you think that this is a proof? You confuse
the basics of what "prediction" means in this context. You are amazingly
dense. Prediction assumes that required knowledge is available, in
principle, not that some one has not been to school to lean it. The fact
that there were no schools teaching physics 10,000 years ago is
trivially irrelevant.

If *in principle* absolute prediction is not possible. This would mean
that an "effect" just happens, on its own, with no cause.

Present one example where a known specific effect, an cause cannot, in
principle, be predicted.

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"..

I have stated many "things" about QM. Most of what I say is basic, not
disputed in any standard text on QM. i.e. nothing new. Its a simple
matter of a web search to see the correctness of what I state.

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.

If the standard interpretation of QM is correct, this is not correct.
Standard QM says QM all there is possible to know is contained in QM. If
something is *inherently* and in principle unpredictable, it can not
have a cause.

You assert that something can be caused even if it cant be predicted. If
so, present one real example.

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!

Not if QM is correct. As I have stated before, QM states that if you
could actually rewind the universe to an exact prior position, the next
outcome could be different.

Sure, QM could be false, and I am not claiming the it is absolutely
correct. I am stating that, *according* to QM, things happen without a
cause.

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.

Nope.

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.

Ok then.. Its drivel.

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.

In your dreams.

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.

Its irrelevant whether *true* free will exists or not. All that matters
is whether or not we have enough information to consciously make a
decision, baring in mind that consciousness is really an illusion
anyway.

From an engineering approximation point of view, I am effectively able
to make any reasonable decision that I like. This is the real world.
Idealist concepts of what in principle may be the exact case, cannot
alleviate the culpability for example, of me committing murder.

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.

Oh a god given truth ....get real.

We all know that
events are caused,

Nope.

we experience it, we see nothing but it.

We experiance events, there is no proof that these events are due to
causes. This is an assumption.

We all

know that whatever happens is irretrievable, namely, that it was
always going to be so.

Irretrievable does not imply "always going to be so" at all. Indeed, as
I have noted many times, according to QM, retrieving all the positions
and momentums back to exactly a prior state will result in a new
outcome.

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.

Gibberish.

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.

Not at all. The quantum ensemble addresses this with no problem, The
basic issue here is understanding what the equation really means. If I
write in software, x = x + 1, what dose it mean? Does it mean that 0 =
1. Of course not. You need to know how the syntax is really interpreted.
Unfortunately, this error seems to have been made by many with the
equivalent in QM.

Consider the classical dice analysed with the same mathematic method as
used in QM. i.e teat it as an ensemble of experiments. I agree that this
approach was introduced with QM, but there is no reason why that same
mathematics and notation can not be used for classical systems.

Its "wave" function is:

psi = (|1> + |2> + |3> + |4> + |5> + |6&gt/sqrt(6)

If I throw it, and before I look at it, the probability of it being in
one particular state can be calculated from psi just as in standard QM.
There is no suggestion that it is in a *real* *physical* mixed state.
There is no reason to suggest that it it needs a MWI to "explain" why
the other probabilities did not occur. Its just notation. Its simple a
method to calculate probabilities of ensembles of experiments, and one
that works.


The net

outcome of our live is inevitable.

Any, supposed, in principle "inevitable", would be a simple technicality
that has zero value in the real world.

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.

No doubt, to zero effect.

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.

In principle, but in fact, never.

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,

imo, serious scientists, e.g. Feynmann, give little weight to
philosophers who prattle on about things that have no background to
understand.

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.

Look, imo, Philosophers are a bunch of Wankers. They are about as useful
as a Teletubby.

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.

This is your new definition of determinism I see.

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

Nope. Not if *in principle* it can't be determined. Again, give one
example of a determinate outcome with no in principle prediction
possible.

The proof is in the pudding.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[Kevin Aylward]

R. Steve Walz wrote:

Misanthrope wrote:

On 10 Jul 2003 21:22:01 -0700, hewpiedawg@hotmail.com (ShrikeBack)
wrote:

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

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

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


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

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

There is something that we can show, and that is that the assumption
that all events are ultimately predictable is false.

That is not what is required for determinism -- that one be able to
KNOW what the outcome is.
-------------
Yup, that's all!


Basically you are confusing the
epistemological question of whether or not we could *know* what will
happen with the metaphysical question of whether or not what will
happen is predestined to happen.

---
Misanthrope
-----------------------
He has no discernment of fine points of the argument.


"All you have to do in life is die." And, most of us
don't deserve any more than death because the question
isn't "Do we really deserve to die?" The question is
"Do we really deserve to live?"
-------------------------
Nobody ever dies. If you died, you wouldn't know it, and if
you know it, you didn't die.

Your typical, if it cant be proved, then it can't be true sort of crap.
What part of Goedel did you have trouble with. That there are statements
that are true, but cannot be derived, i.e. proved from existing axioms.

I agree absolutely that it can not be *proved* that one dies, however,
the evidence for this is absolutely overwhelming. e.g people don't do a
lot after having their skulls crushed in, and I don't see too many
reports of ghosts in court telling the judge who killed them.

The idea that you actually believe that you wont die speaks volumes.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[E. Kunze]

On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 12:52:25 -0500, Mike Berger <berger@shout.net>
wrote:

The key here is "should have discharged" and "if you don't tamper with
these, you are fairly safe." I would not advise depending on these.

I find it always hard to answer posts like those of the OP.
We neither know the posters degree of knowledge/experience nor his
equipment, and to guess from the wording may lead astray.

Nevertheless, the OP has a problem we want to help to solve, and most
of the time (I) remember the first time of repairing a device
(my/our)selves.
I then try very hard to find the appropriate balance between warning
and encouragement. But, admittedly, there is much room left for
discussion, since where to draw the line depends on the respective
personal view/history.

But this is where others like you are welcome to jump in and shout
"Hey,...". In the end, the repaired device can only be enjoyed if the
repair effort was survived.
Eb

 

[Dave]

Gary Woods <gwoods@spamfree.albany.net> wrote in message news:<beutgv06d0jviet28foc7f35f4khdcf48k@4ax.com>...

et472@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michael Black) wrote:

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.

Well, yes... at least to understand that they don't know what the funny
black things with wires sticking out are. It isn't nitpicking to observe
that Rat Shack droids have even less clues than most. And Ghod knows, I
don't expect anything of them at all. [...]

Occasionally, but very rarely, I have found one who does know what is
what, but even then you just look at them funny because you can guess
they have probably already turned in their two-week notice and you
won't ever see them again.