Toshiba TV29C90 problem; Image fades to black...

[Sharon Leigh]

Yes, I swapped speakers. I also moved the set over to the B speaker
terminals. Guess what? Same problem.


"Jeff" <frontline_electronics@NSatt.net> wrote in message
news:31lRa.57999$0v4.3923232@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

Have you swapped the speakers?
Jeff

"Sharon Leigh" <sleigh@aol.com> wrote in message
news:k4eRa.1876$KZ.911568@news1.news.adelphia.net...
Yes, I do have sound in the bad channel. I think the best way to
describe
it
is that it sounds like a radio station that's not tuned in properly.
It's
staticy and garbled.
"bigmike" <bigmike@cornhusker.net> wrote in message
news:3f14de13$0$24599$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...

"Sharon Leigh" <sleigh@aol.com> wrote in message
news:VA4Ra.1371$KZ.745283@news1.news.adelphia.net...
I was just reading the post about the marantz receiver static
problem.
Mine's slightly different, in that it goes away when I turn the
balance
all
the way left, and my headphones work fine. I cleaned every
conceivable
contact and circuit and still have the static. The receiver's 32
years
old
so I am suspecting something has died or fried along the way. anyone
have
any ideas?


Lot's of possibilities. Dirty or worn speaker switch contacts, bad
relay
(if the old amp uses one) contacts, dried up caps, leaky transistors.
Headphones require very little power to produce sound, so some
problems
in
the output stage might not show up when using them. By the way, do
you
have
sound through the bad channel along with the static, or just static?

 

[Sam Goldwasser]

You need a step down transformer capable of the total wattage or about
425 W in this case.

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

nmotgi@hotmail.com (Nitin) writes:

Hi,
I have a BOSE 35 Lifestyle system. For BOSE to convert to Dual
Voltage BOSE is charging a lot. I am taking the system to India(In
India we have 220-240 50/60 Hz). Following are Power Rating for the
devices, Please help me to find a better Step Down Voltage convertor.

Media Center :
For US I/P : 120V ~ 0.55A 50/60 Hz
International I/P : 220-240V ~ 0.30A 50/60Hz

And for Speaker System
USA : I/P : 100-120V ~ 50/60Hz 350W
International : I/P : 220-240V ~ 50/60Hz 350W

So If I am taking a US system to India, what should be the watt of
convertor for both the above system.

I want the most reliable voltage convertors.

Thank you, in advance
Nitin

 

[Peter Gottlieb]

I concur. These batteries are a compromise. To get long life you need
thick plates; to get good capacity and low internal impedance (together,
high performance) you need lots of plate area. While you can get longer
life batteries, most of them are designed to lean towards higher short-term
performance and so must be replaced every few years.


"Jerry Greenberg" <jerryg50@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:460a833b.0307161550.2036dcc7@posting.google.com...

The tips below are excellent, and accurate! The expected life-span of
a gell or lead acid battery is about 2 to 4 years average if the
battery is used under ideal conditions. I have seen some last about 5
to 6, but rarely. Anything more than about 3 years is a free ride.

If you follow the tips below, the batteries will last about the max
you will ever get from them.


Jerry Greenberg

--


gothika <gothika@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:<jl7bhv0hpa34muvdvajg4li5a6ghfibgtk@4ax.com>...
Thanks for the tips.
I use alot of sealed lead acid batteries for various applications.
Power for photo strobes, handheld spotlights, camcorders etc...
Up till now I've been using wall wart type power supplies for
charging.
The batteries I use are the sealed lead acid type normally used in
emergency lighting etc...
The work very well for the job but tend to die out after 2-3 years
whether used heavy or lightly.
I never knoe if it was simply their usable shelf life or what as I
tend to avoid complete discharge as much as possible.(typically I'll
top charge after battery has reach 50% discharge.)
The wall warts I use match the voltage of the battery(6 or 12) and
have a milliamp output rate no more than 70% of the max allowable
charge rate of the battery.(Most of my batts have a max rate around
800ma, the wall warts 500ma.)
Can you recommend some smart chargers for these types of batteries?
Also, would I be better off switching to sealed gel-pack lead acids or
some other form of battery?(I don't stay up on the latest in battery
technology.)
I gotta stay away from nicad and other forms of "memory" batteries
though.
Thanks again.

On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 19:19:51 +0200, Bill Darden
william.darden@uumail.de> wrote:

Top Ten Deep Cycle Battery Tips

1. Wear glasses when working with a battery, because it might
explode.

2. Recharge your battery as soon as possible after each use. To
prevent permanent sulfation when not in use and especially in hot
weather, keep your battery continuously connected to a "smart" or
maintenance charger or recharge your battery when the State-of-Charge
drops below 80%. Cheap unregulated "trickle" chargers will kill your
battery.

3. Keep your non-sealed battery away from salt water, cool, properly
filled with distilled water, and the top clean. The plates must be
covered at all times.

4. The lower the average Depth-of-Discharge the longer the service
life.

5. Follow the battery manufacturers recommended charging voltages and
procedures. People kill more deep cycle batteries with bad charging
practices than die of old age. Permanent sulfation kills
approximately 85% of all deep cycle batteries.

6. When buying a replacement battery, be sure it matches your
charging system & ampere hour (Ah) requirements and is fresh. Heavier
is better.

7. Keep the battery cable mating surfaces and terminals free from
corrosion.

8. Avoid a shallow (below 10%) discharges or deep discharge below 20%
State-of-Charge of your battery. This could kill it.

9. For longer battery life, do not add acid or additives, keep your
battery securely fastened, and equalize charge it (if recommended by
the battery manufacturer).

10. Use chargers (or settings) that will recharge batteries over
eight to ten hours.

For additional battery information, please go to
http://www.batteryfaq.org.

 

[David]

Tuner is bad in the tv set. The UHF section of the tuner is not working at
all. High band cable channels are usually tuned by the UHF section in the
tuner starting somewhere around channel 50 give or take.
hoss <mulletman1968@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bf505i$er1$1@news-int.gatech.edu...

thank you again for your help. typing in higher channels (those offered my
provider), followed by pressing "ENTER," was of course on of the first
things I tried. that followed by reprogramming which hasn't changed
anything.

again, other TVs connected to my cable do receive all the channels
provided
by our cable company (2-119). And the problem remains for my TV when I
plug
it into other cables around the building, it doesn't receive above 47.


a sure solution is of course what Bigmike suggested by getting a vcr to
change the channels. but i am now mostly interested in what's wrong with
my
TV and would like to fix it.





"Sofie" <sofie@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:vhbojs4v493db8@corp.supernews.com...
boss / Adam:
Yes.... it should be receiving all the cable channels.....
try, with the remote to punch in .... say... channel 49, 52, etc... or
some
upper channel ..... BE CERTAIN to press the ENTER button after you
punch
in
the channel number. If you can receive the channel that you have just
manually enter then it is just a simple matter of ADDING the channels to
the
channel memory.... should be a (+) or (-) button on the remote or on
the
television or an on screen menu that lets you add or delete channels.
Let
us know what you find out.
--
Best Regards,
Daniel Sofie
Electronics Supply & Repair
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


"hoss" <mulletman1968@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bf4n23$a2i$1@news-int.gatech.edu...
The model number of my sony is KV-13M10. it was manufactured in aug
1995.
what dose this tell you about my TV? Should it be receiving above 47
channels?

"Sofie" <sofie@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:vhbacj7m435f9d@corp.supernews.com...
hoss / Adam::
If you can provide a model number I think you might get some more
specific
advice..... obviously not all Sony 13" televisions were designed
and
built
the same.
Cable television channels over the years have expanded several times
as
allowed by FCC rules..... so in the earlier years the television
manufacturers did not build capability into a television that was
not
needed.... or was not even an issue.
Depending on the features and design of your television and how old
it
is,
up to cable channel 47 just may be all it can receive..... slightly
older
televisions may have only gone up to cable channel 36, and older
than
that
maybe cable channel 22.
--
Best Regards,
Daniel Sofie
Electronics Supply & Repair

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


"hoss" <mulletman1968@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bf485l$1mi$1@news-int.gatech.edu...
I have a sony trintiron 13'' TV. unfortunately I don't know the
year.
for
some reason I can't get any channel above 47 on it while about 100
channels
are available when another TV is connected to the same cable. in
addition
the problem still remaines when the problematic sony is connected
to
anyother cable. Of course I've tried reprogramming the TV but that
doesn't
work. it doesn't even receive the higher channels when they are
specifically
typed into the remote, just static.

I wonder if anyone has any advice on what the problem may be and
how
to
fix
it aside from getting a new TV.


Thank you very much,
Adam



mulletman1968@hotmail.com

 

[Sofie]

Sharon Leigh:
OK then...... the simple stuff is OK..... now the next step is for you to
troubleshoot the circuitry as described in all the reply posts that you have
received on this newsgroup. If you can do some of the technical stuff at
your end.... and you still can not fix it, you should post the ALL of the
results of your troubleshooting efforts, inspection and resoldering of
questionable connections, voltage readings, component tests, and if you can,
signal tracing with an oscilloscope..... if you can be our eyes, ears, and
hands, we might be able to give you some additional suggestions.
If, after reading all the reply posts, you still are not certain how to
proceed, and lack the test equipment, tools, basic electronics knowledge and
minimum repair experience needed, you might be best advised to take your
receiver to a service shop for a safe and proper repair, or at the very
least you should obtain a repair cost estimate so you can make an
intelligent repair decision with facts instead of internet guesses.
There are some shops that really specialize fixing the older stereo
equipment.... ask around.
--
Best Regards,
Daniel Sofie
Electronics Supply & Repair
----------------------------------


"Sharon Leigh" <sleigh@aol.com> wrote in message
news:WboRa.3034$KZ.1115395@news1.news.adelphia.net...

Yes, I swapped speakers. I also moved the set over to the B speaker
terminals. Guess what? Same problem.

 

[Jerry Greenberg]

You did not supply the model number.

Depending on the era of the set, it may be at the maximum channel
range of its design. Some of the older sets only went to channel 22,
and later to 36, 44, 86, and now most to 125 for cable.

If you want the extended channels and your set cannot receive them,
you can use a newer model of VCR as a tuner, or get a cable TV
converter.

If your set is a model of set that is new enough to allow the higher
channels, check to see that the user setup for the tuner is in the
proper mode, and the channels are programed to be allowed to scan that
high. If this is okay, and the specs of the set comply, it is
possible that there is a failure in the tuner. At this point you will
have to have the set serviced.


Jerry Greenberg
http://www.zoom-one.com

--



"hoss" <mulletman1968@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<bf485l$1mi$1@news-int.gatech.edu>...

I have a sony trintiron 13'' TV. unfortunately I don't know the year. for
some reason I can't get any channel above 47 on it while about 100 channels
are available when another TV is connected to the same cable. in addition
the problem still remaines when the problematic sony is connected to
anyother cable. Of course I've tried reprogramming the TV but that doesn't
work. it doesn't even receive the higher channels when they are specifically
typed into the remote, just static.

I wonder if anyone has any advice on what the problem may be and how to fix
it aside from getting a new TV.


Thank you very much,
Adam



mulletman1968@hotmail.com

 

[Alex]

Contact Pioneer Spare Parts and order the service manual.

al.

"Wim De Bruyn" <wim_debruyn@pandora.be> wrote in message
news:0vhRa.14084$F92.1544@afrodite.telenet-ops.be...

Who can help (read provide) me with the schematics of this subject ?

It is a dubbel cd player ...

wim_debruyn@pandora.be

 

[bigmike]

"Keith R. Williams" <krw@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.197fc7686564afca98a52e@enews.newsguy.com...

In article <3f15bc6d$0$24566$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com>,
bigmike@cornhusker.net says...

It's time for everybody in this thread to go fishing

...and just what do you think has been going on here?

--
Keith

Yeah, but nobody is catching anything

 

[hoss]

How much does something like that take to fix?

"David" <dkuhajda@locl.net.spam> wrote in message
news:3f163f30@news.greennet.net...

Tuner is bad in the tv set. The UHF section of the tuner is not working
at
all. High band cable channels are usually tuned by the UHF section in the
tuner starting somewhere around channel 50 give or take.
hoss <mulletman1968@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bf505i$er1$1@news-int.gatech.edu...
thank you again for your help. typing in higher channels (those offered
my
provider), followed by pressing "ENTER," was of course on of the first
things I tried. that followed by reprogramming which hasn't changed
anything.

again, other TVs connected to my cable do receive all the channels
provided
by our cable company (2-119). And the problem remains for my TV when I
plug
it into other cables around the building, it doesn't receive above 47.


a sure solution is of course what Bigmike suggested by getting a vcr to
change the channels. but i am now mostly interested in what's wrong with
my
TV and would like to fix it.





"Sofie" <sofie@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:vhbojs4v493db8@corp.supernews.com...
boss / Adam:
Yes.... it should be receiving all the cable channels.....
try, with the remote to punch in .... say... channel 49, 52, etc...
or
some
upper channel ..... BE CERTAIN to press the ENTER button after you
punch
in
the channel number. If you can receive the channel that you have
just
manually enter then it is just a simple matter of ADDING the channels
to
the
channel memory.... should be a (+) or (-) button on the remote or on
the
television or an on screen menu that lets you add or delete channels.
Let
us know what you find out.
--
Best Regards,
Daniel Sofie
Electronics Supply & Repair

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


"hoss" <mulletman1968@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bf4n23$a2i$1@news-int.gatech.edu...
The model number of my sony is KV-13M10. it was manufactured in aug
1995.
what dose this tell you about my TV? Should it be receiving above 47
channels?

"Sofie" <sofie@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:vhbacj7m435f9d@corp.supernews.com...
hoss / Adam::
If you can provide a model number I think you might get some more
specific
advice..... obviously not all Sony 13" televisions were designed
and
built
the same.
Cable television channels over the years have expanded several
times
as
allowed by FCC rules..... so in the earlier years the television
manufacturers did not build capability into a television that was
not
needed.... or was not even an issue.
Depending on the features and design of your television and how
old
it
is,
up to cable channel 47 just may be all it can receive.....
slightly
older
televisions may have only gone up to cable channel 36, and older
than
that
maybe cable channel 22.
--
Best Regards,
Daniel Sofie
Electronics Supply & Repair


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


"hoss" <mulletman1968@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bf485l$1mi$1@news-int.gatech.edu...
I have a sony trintiron 13'' TV. unfortunately I don't know the
year.
for
some reason I can't get any channel above 47 on it while about
100
channels
are available when another TV is connected to the same cable. in
addition
the problem still remaines when the problematic sony is
connected
to
anyother cable. Of course I've tried reprogramming the TV but
that
doesn't
work. it doesn't even receive the higher channels when they are
specifically
typed into the remote, just static.

I wonder if anyone has any advice on what the problem may be and
how
to
fix
it aside from getting a new TV.


Thank you very much,
Adam



mulletman1968@hotmail.com

 

[bigmike]

"Sharon Leigh" <sleigh@aol.com> wrote in message
news:WboRa.3034$KZ.1115395@news1.news.adelphia.net...

Yes, I swapped speakers. I also moved the set over to the B speaker
terminals. Guess what? Same problem.

Then it's time to start trouble shooting. No particular "common part" is

the cause of that problem. Any switch on the front of that unit can have
dirty contacts and cause static. Be sure to try them all to see if they have
an effect, including the tone controls. They all have seperate contacts for
each channel. If it's not the switches, then I would check the board for any
bad solder joints. After that, it requires basic troubleshooting skills, a
few basic pieces of test gear, and some basic electronic skills. By the way,
what does this static sound like? Is it like a hiss, or is it a frying
sound? A frying sound tend to point one toward a bad transistor(s) in the
output stage. Maybe you could explain the sound a little better.

"Jeff" <frontline_electronics@NSatt.net> wrote in message
news:31lRa.57999$0v4.3923232@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Have you swapped the speakers?
Jeff

"Sharon Leigh" <sleigh@aol.com> wrote in message
news:k4eRa.1876$KZ.911568@news1.news.adelphia.net...
Yes, I do have sound in the bad channel. I think the best way to
describe
it
is that it sounds like a radio station that's not tuned in properly.
It's
staticy and garbled.
"bigmike" <bigmike@cornhusker.net> wrote in message
news:3f14de13$0$24599$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...

"Sharon Leigh" <sleigh@aol.com> wrote in message
news:VA4Ra.1371$KZ.745283@news1.news.adelphia.net...
I was just reading the post about the marantz receiver static
problem.
Mine's slightly different, in that it goes away when I turn the
balance
all
the way left, and my headphones work fine. I cleaned every
conceivable
contact and circuit and still have the static. The receiver's 32
years
old
so I am suspecting something has died or fried along the way.
anyone
have
any ideas?


Lot's of possibilities. Dirty or worn speaker switch contacts, bad
relay
(if the old amp uses one) contacts, dried up caps, leaky
transistors.
Headphones require very little power to produce sound, so some
problems
in
the output stage might not show up when using them. By the way, do
you
have
sound through the bad channel along with the static, or just static?

 

[Sharon Leigh]

I have done a pretty thorough visual inspection. Don't see any bad solder at
the speaker terminals. No obvious burn marks or smells. I really don't think
the receiver is worth the effort to fix unless it's something fairly simple,
which it apparently isn't. I am, however, going to go through the boards one
more time with a magnifying glass to see if there's something I missed.

Thanks for your help everyone.




"bigmike" <bigmike@cornhusker.net> wrote in message
news:3f16179f$0$24529$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...

"Sharon Leigh" <sleigh@aol.com> wrote in message
news:WboRa.3034$KZ.1115395@news1.news.adelphia.net...
Yes, I swapped speakers. I also moved the set over to the B speaker
terminals. Guess what? Same problem.

Then it's time to start trouble shooting. No particular "common part" is
the cause of that problem. Any switch on the front of that unit can have
dirty contacts and cause static. Be sure to try them all to see if they
have
an effect, including the tone controls. They all have seperate contacts
for
each channel. If it's not the switches, then I would check the board for
any
bad solder joints. After that, it requires basic troubleshooting skills, a
few basic pieces of test gear, and some basic electronic skills. By the
way,
what does this static sound like? Is it like a hiss, or is it a frying
sound? A frying sound tend to point one toward a bad transistor(s) in the
output stage. Maybe you could explain the sound a little better.


"Jeff" <frontline_electronics@NSatt.net> wrote in message
news:31lRa.57999$0v4.3923232@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Have you swapped the speakers?
Jeff

"Sharon Leigh" <sleigh@aol.com> wrote in message
news:k4eRa.1876$KZ.911568@news1.news.adelphia.net...
Yes, I do have sound in the bad channel. I think the best way to
describe
it
is that it sounds like a radio station that's not tuned in properly.
It's
staticy and garbled.
"bigmike" <bigmike@cornhusker.net> wrote in message
news:3f14de13$0$24599$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...

"Sharon Leigh" <sleigh@aol.com> wrote in message
news:VA4Ra.1371$KZ.745283@news1.news.adelphia.net...
I was just reading the post about the marantz receiver static
problem.
Mine's slightly different, in that it goes away when I turn the
balance
all
the way left, and my headphones work fine. I cleaned every
conceivable
contact and circuit and still have the static. The receiver's 32
years
old
so I am suspecting something has died or fried along the way.
anyone
have
any ideas?


Lot's of possibilities. Dirty or worn speaker switch contacts,
bad
relay
(if the old amp uses one) contacts, dried up caps, leaky
transistors.
Headphones require very little power to produce sound, so some
problems
in
the output stage might not show up when using them. By the way,
do
you
have
sound through the bad channel along with the static, or just
static?

 

[AC/DCdude17]

X-No-Archive: Yes

Nitin wrote:

Hi,
I have a BOSE 35 Lifestyle system. For BOSE to convert to Dual
Voltage BOSE is charging a lot. I am taking the system to India(In
India we have 220-240 50/60 Hz). Following are Power Rating for the
devices, Please help me to find a better Step Down Voltage convertor.

Media Center :
For US I/P : 120V ~ 0.55A 50/60 Hz
International I/P : 220-240V ~ 0.30A 50/60Hz

And for Speaker System
USA : I/P : 100-120V ~ 50/60Hz 350W
International : I/P : 220-240V ~ 50/60Hz 350W

So If I am taking a US system to India, what should be the watt of
convertor for both the above system.

I want the most reliable voltage convertors.

Thank you, in advance
Nitin

Get a 240V to 120V 1KVA autotransformer. The transformer should be rated
for 50/60Hz or else it may overheat on 50Hz power.

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Kevin Aylward wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:
Kevin Aylward wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:
Paul Burridge wrote:

On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 09:57:10 +0100, "Kevin Aylward"
kevin@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

Existence is pointless. We exist because the laws of physics allow
it. Thats all there is to it.
------------------
No, we're here because our inner nature allows the laws of physics
that make us possible in this manner.

Oh rubbish. Inner nature indeed. Just what are you on. The laws of
physics are there independent of whether we are here or not.
-----------------------------------------
No, if you kill yourself, they aren't here anymore.

Nope. I just cant *prove* that they are there. I am reasonable convinced
that the rest of the universe will go on without me.
-----------------------

You being convinced won't make it so.
There's NO evidence that it does, or can.
None, and never will be!

And there here isn't even "here" anymore.

Being here is something WE do, not something the observed universe
does. The ONLY way atoms, stars, galaxies, or anything has ever
existed or will ever exist is within the scope and the bounds of
a person living their Life as an observer.

Nope. You keep repeating tis shit. Look, no one is that important.
-------------------------------

Irrelevant opinion. If only you exist, then importance is irrelevant.

Matter will never "exist"
more than as someone's perception that it does, it will simply not
EVER happen.

As I said many times, you completely confuse, as the rank amateur you
are,
--------------------

Disingenuous.

inability with proof of an event, to that of the event itself.
----------------------------------

It sure helps to have support for the things you assert, and you don't.

Goedal - Statements can be true without proof.
------------------------------------

Sure. And they can also be false.
You left that part out.

Reality exists as observation, not as concrete ground
of being beneatn us, that honor goes to the heart of awareness itself,
which generates the atoms stars and galazies into being on a case by
case basis as they need be perceived by us,

Nonsense.
-----------

Insufficient.

A non-original, old idea, passed around for discussion at tea
parties, which on detailed examination, has severe problems to make the
idea best left at tea parties.
------------------------

Meaningless.

and to the depth and
degree that we do so, and NO MORE!! If you never have a chance to
look at a specific phenomenon, then it doesn't ever exist.


Ho humm, the tree in the forest bit.. oh dear...done to death. Sorry
maty, my mum told me she saw it, so I believed her. Mummy wouldn't lie
to me.
-------------------------------

Suuuure.

Er, no. The point of existence is simply to reproduce successfuly.
We're all slaves to that all-pervasive macromolecule, DNA.
-------------------
The physical world cannot be shown to exist as other than thoughts
in the mind.

I agree with this statement, but it does not logically follow that
without the human mind, that the physical world does not exist.
------------------
Sure it does, nor can you possibly tell me how THAT COULD happen!!

You know f'all about logic then.
---------------

Okay, smart guy, tell me how the universe could exist without the
human mind perceiving it. All you can do is tell me a story you
cannot show to be true.

What part of Goedal are you still have trouble with?
---------------

None.

Its a being proved.
--------------

Is this english?

Done to death. Statements can be true
without proof. Its that simple. Live with it.
-----------------

Or they can be false.

As I
have explained many times, Goedal allows for true, but unprovable
statements.
------------------
So does subjective existence, which indicates that the origin of
ourselves and the universe are the same and are perceptuo-cognitive.

Objective existence of the universe as what makes US, does NOT!


The evidence strongly suggest that the universe is not
dependant on the consciousness of any particular individual.
--------------------
Since the only universe that can be shown to exist does so through
the perception of one single being, yourself, and no other such beings
can be shown to BE other real beings in their own right, except that
they are confabulations of your reality, then that notion is bogus.

What part of Goedel are you still having trouble with.
-------------------------

None, as I told you.

I agree, I cannot show that anyone I meet is another other real being.
------------

Finally.

However, I have seen x-rays of myself, and x-rays of other people, wee
all seem to look about the same.
------------

Praytell can you prove to me that ANYTHING you have seen is other than
an idea in your mind????

There's no way to do that!

We all seem to speak a language, two
all seem to bleed etc...The evidance is simply overwhelming that I am
not unique. Jsuut one example, amoung billions, of the laws of > physics.
--------------------------

See above.

I suggest you see a doctor, seriously. You views are very similar to > my
Schizophrenia twin.
----------------------

You have a schizophrenic twin?

He believe that he is the only conscious living
being in the world. The rest of us are robots, placed here as a game
to
torment him by the alien that made him.
--------------------------

Well that's nice, but he's crazy. I'm not.

Goedal again:
Statements can be true without proof. Or they can be false.

Why should
it. Consciousness is nothing special from a physics point of view.
----------------------
OH REALLY!!!! Then YOU go nip off and build me one, eh??

vacuous argument. Please present some new physics that is required to
explain the brain.
---------------------------------

Physics is an idea associated with the world as perceived.
The brain is part of the same physics.
It's still only a totally subjective reality.

Its just the result of complex organisation of mass-energy.
Kevin Aylward
----------------------------
What hand-waving!!

I don't believe in magic.
Kevin Aylward
-------------------------

Ain't "magic", it's beyond explanation entirely.
I know that you REALLY dislike that fact, but there 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

 

[gothika]

60's and early 70's. They carried parts from Allied electronics.
If you're old enough to remember Allied, then you know that they were
out of Britain and had quite a catalog, I actually purchased parts to
fix pioneer stereo's from allied, many came right out of a Radio Shack
store.

On 15 Jul 2003 21:32:29 GMT, TCS
<The.Central.Scrutinizer@p.o.b.o.x.com> wrote:

html><input type crash></html
begin On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 07:33:32 GMT, gothika <gothika@earthlink.net> wrote:

I agree, having idiots on the sales floor is extremely annoying.
However if the sign out on hte the front of the store says Radio
Shack, a name that for many years was synonomous with electronics
part, then you damn well ought to have PARTS!
I can remember when they actually had just about any part or component
you could want for home electronics repair or hobby work.

When was that? Even in the mid 70's, radio shack was pretty much
worthless for repairs or hobby work. I don't think RS has ever had
a selection of more than 20 integrated circuits.

 

[gothika]

Tandy bought them out in the early 70's.

On 16 Jul 2003 01:12:32 GMT, et472@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michael Black)
wrote:

TCS (The.Central.Scrutinizer@p.o.b.o.x.com) writes:
html><input type crash></html
begin On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 07:33:32 GMT, gothika <gothika@earthlink.net> wrote:

I agree, having idiots on the sales floor is extremely annoying.
However if the sign out on hte the front of the store says Radio
Shack, a name that for many years was synonomous with electronics
part, then you damn well ought to have PARTS!
I can remember when they actually had just about any part or component
you could want for home electronics repair or hobby work.

When was that? Even in the mid 70's, radio shack was pretty much
worthless for repairs or hobby work. I don't think RS has ever had
a selection of more than 20 integrated circuits.

People still seem to be thinking in terms of Radio Shack before Tandy
bought it. It was a small regional chain in the Boston area.

But that was over thirty years ago, maybe more like forty years.

Michael

 

[TV Fixer1]

On the Panasonic, they may have fixed this in the last year or two, but prior
to that, there was no vertical centering adjustment on the 27 and 32 inch
TV's...
Had one with an off center picture, and the factory tech told me to "tilt the
yoke" to move the pic!!!(Honest)

 

[Wim De Bruyn]

If I wish to spend mony on it , I would have done that ...

Maybe someone has a PDF- file of it ?

wim


"Alex" <no@no.spam.com.au> schreef in bericht
news:bf54st$qnb$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...

Contact Pioneer Spare Parts and order the service manual.

al.

"Wim De Bruyn" <wim_debruyn@pandora.be> wrote in message
news:0vhRa.14084$F92.1544@afrodite.telenet-ops.be...
Who can help (read provide) me with the schematics of this subject ?

It is a dubbel cd player ...

wim_debruyn@pandora.be

 

[bigmike]

"Sharon Leigh" <sleigh@aol.com> wrote in message
news:_vqRa.3080$KZ.1156851@news1.news.adelphia.net...

I have done a pretty thorough visual inspection. Don't see any bad solder
at
the speaker terminals. No obvious burn marks or smells. I really don't
think
the receiver is worth the effort to fix unless it's something fairly
simple,
which it apparently isn't. I am, however, going to go through the boards
one
more time with a magnifying glass to see if there's something I missed.

Thanks for your help everyone.

Most of the time, a problem like this has no visual indications. A

transistor or cap can be defective without any outward signs of a problem.
Something you might want to try is tapping on the board lighting with the
end of something plastic, like the reverse end of an ink pin, while the amp
is on. See if you hear the noise problem change. A bad solder joint could be
just about anywhere on the board, not just at the speaker connections, and
cause the problem. If you have limited abilities at troubleshooting, then
it's true, you will have to make a judgement call on whether it's worth
repairing or not. But, if your interested in learning more about
electronics, this amp would make a nice place to start.

"bigmike" <bigmike@cornhusker.net> wrote in message
news:3f16179f$0$24529$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...

"Sharon Leigh" <sleigh@aol.com> wrote in message
news:WboRa.3034$KZ.1115395@news1.news.adelphia.net...
Yes, I swapped speakers. I also moved the set over to the B speaker
terminals. Guess what? Same problem.

Then it's time to start trouble shooting. No particular "common part"
is
the cause of that problem. Any switch on the front of that unit can
have
dirty contacts and cause static. Be sure to try them all to see if they
have
an effect, including the tone controls. They all have seperate contacts
for
each channel. If it's not the switches, then I would check the board for
any
bad solder joints. After that, it requires basic troubleshooting skills,
a
few basic pieces of test gear, and some basic electronic skills. By the
way,
what does this static sound like? Is it like a hiss, or is it a frying
sound? A frying sound tend to point one toward a bad transistor(s) in
the
output stage. Maybe you could explain the sound a little better.


"Jeff" <frontline_electronics@NSatt.net> wrote in message
news:31lRa.57999$0v4.3923232@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Have you swapped the speakers?
Jeff

"Sharon Leigh" <sleigh@aol.com> wrote in message
news:k4eRa.1876$KZ.911568@news1.news.adelphia.net...
Yes, I do have sound in the bad channel. I think the best way to
describe
it
is that it sounds like a radio station that's not tuned in
properly.
It's
staticy and garbled.
"bigmike" <bigmike@cornhusker.net> wrote in message
news:3f14de13$0$24599$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...

"Sharon Leigh" <sleigh@aol.com> wrote in message
news:VA4Ra.1371$KZ.745283@news1.news.adelphia.net...
I was just reading the post about the marantz receiver static
problem.
Mine's slightly different, in that it goes away when I turn
the
balance
all
the way left, and my headphones work fine. I cleaned every
conceivable
contact and circuit and still have the static. The receiver's
32
years
old
so I am suspecting something has died or fried along the way.
anyone
have
any ideas?


Lot's of possibilities. Dirty or worn speaker switch contacts,
bad
relay
(if the old amp uses one) contacts, dried up caps, leaky
transistors.
Headphones require very little power to produce sound, so some
problems
in
the output stage might not show up when using them. By the way,
do
you
have
sound through the bad channel along with the static, or just
static?

 

[bigmike]

I meant to say tap on the board lightly, not tap on the board lighting

"bigmike" <bigmike@cornhusker.net> wrote in message news:...

"Sharon Leigh" <sleigh@aol.com> wrote in message
news:_vqRa.3080$KZ.1156851@news1.news.adelphia.net...
I have done a pretty thorough visual inspection. Don't see any bad
solder
at
the speaker terminals. No obvious burn marks or smells. I really don't
think
the receiver is worth the effort to fix unless it's something fairly
simple,
which it apparently isn't. I am, however, going to go through the boards
one
more time with a magnifying glass to see if there's something I missed.

Thanks for your help everyone.

Most of the time, a problem like this has no visual indications. A
transistor or cap can be defective without any outward signs of a problem.
Something you might want to try is tapping on the board lighting with the
end of something plastic, like the reverse end of an ink pin, while the
amp
is on. See if you hear the noise problem change. A bad solder joint could
be
just about anywhere on the board, not just at the speaker connections, and
cause the problem. If you have limited abilities at troubleshooting, then
it's true, you will have to make a judgement call on whether it's worth
repairing or not. But, if your interested in learning more about
electronics, this amp would make a nice place to start.




"bigmike" <bigmike@cornhusker.net> wrote in message
news:3f16179f$0$24529$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...

"Sharon Leigh" <sleigh@aol.com> wrote in message
news:WboRa.3034$KZ.1115395@news1.news.adelphia.net...
Yes, I swapped speakers. I also moved the set over to the B speaker
terminals. Guess what? Same problem.

Then it's time to start trouble shooting. No particular "common part"
is
the cause of that problem. Any switch on the front of that unit can
have
dirty contacts and cause static. Be sure to try them all to see if
they
have
an effect, including the tone controls. They all have seperate
contacts
for
each channel. If it's not the switches, then I would check the board
for
any
bad solder joints. After that, it requires basic troubleshooting
skills,
a
few basic pieces of test gear, and some basic electronic skills. By
the
way,
what does this static sound like? Is it like a hiss, or is it a frying
sound? A frying sound tend to point one toward a bad transistor(s) in
the
output stage. Maybe you could explain the sound a little better.


"Jeff" <frontline_electronics@NSatt.net> wrote in message
news:31lRa.57999$0v4.3923232@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Have you swapped the speakers?
Jeff

"Sharon Leigh" <sleigh@aol.com> wrote in message
news:k4eRa.1876$KZ.911568@news1.news.adelphia.net...
Yes, I do have sound in the bad channel. I think the best way to
describe
it
is that it sounds like a radio station that's not tuned in
properly.
It's
staticy and garbled.
"bigmike" <bigmike@cornhusker.net> wrote in message
news:3f14de13$0$24599$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...

"Sharon Leigh" <sleigh@aol.com> wrote in message
news:VA4Ra.1371$KZ.745283@news1.news.adelphia.net...
I was just reading the post about the marantz receiver
static
problem.
Mine's slightly different, in that it goes away when I turn
the
balance
all
the way left, and my headphones work fine. I cleaned every
conceivable
contact and circuit and still have the static. The
receiver's
32
years
old
so I am suspecting something has died or fried along the
way.
anyone
have
any ideas?


Lot's of possibilities. Dirty or worn speaker switch contacts,
bad
relay
(if the old amp uses one) contacts, dried up caps, leaky
transistors.
Headphones require very little power to produce sound, so some
problems
in
the output stage might not show up when using them. By the
way,
do
you
have
sound through the bad channel along with the static, or just
static?

 

[Laurence Payne]

Maybe it's time for another option and go on the offensive with counter
measures to disable his equipment. He's annoying you so you could be
smarter than him at annoying him in turn. For instance, wire up a tiny
high pitched noise maker that goes off briefly at random intervals.
If he isn't already, he'll go nuts trying to figure out what it is and
where it's coming from. Just don't push him over the brink, as people
like that sometimes go postal on you when you least expect it.

Postal? What, they attack you with envelopes?