Toshiba TV29C90 problem; Image fades to black...

<its you> wrote in message
news:4ollhv80jrukn00njh28lqa2csc72oduia@4ax.com...
And, just out of curiousity, how would one go about winding a
torroidal transformer?
Assuming you could obtain a toroidal mains transformer core (those ferrite
rings are not the same thing at all) you would have a nightmare trying to
wind it. They are factory wound using a long thin spool holding the
enamelled wire which is fed through the hole in the middle of the toroid
over and over to get the right number of turns. You'd have to be a very
determined hobbyist to build a toroid winder in the home!

Unless, of course, someone knows another way of doing it...

Dave
 
"Dave D" wrote to "All" (20 Jul 03 16:26:52)
--- on the topic of "Re: 30-0-30 Transformer, home brew or buy"

DD> From: "Dave D" <someone@somewhere.com>

DD> <its you> wrote in message
DD> news:4ollhv80jrukn00njh28lqa2csc72oduia@4ax.com...
And, just out of curiousity, how would one go about winding a
torroidal transformer?
DD> Assuming you could obtain a toroidal mains transformer core (those
DD> ferrite rings are not the same thing at all) you would have a nightmare
DD> trying to wind it. They are factory wound using a long thin spool
DD> holding the enamelled wire which is fed through the hole in the middle
DD> of the toroid over and over to get the right number of turns. You'd
DD> have to be a very determined hobbyist to build a toroid winder in the
DD> home!
DD> Unless, of course, someone knows another way of doing it...

Sure start with a transformer with a higher voltage rating than needed
and remove as many turns as required from the secondary. I've done this
a few times with big 1:1 transformers to bring them down to 50Vct. It's
solidly mounting the lead's that's the real bugger.

.... I know flyback, ultor, and 47 other dangerous words.
 
"Asimov" <warpcastgate@-removethis-bbs.juxtaposition.dynip.com> wrote in
message news:MSGID_1=3a167=2f133.0_3f1add64@fidonet.org...
"Dave D" wrote to "All" (20 Jul 03 16:26:52)
--- on the topic of "Re: 30-0-30 Transformer, home brew or buy"

DD> From: "Dave D" <someone@somewhere.com

DD> <its you> wrote in message
DD> news:4ollhv80jrukn00njh28lqa2csc72oduia@4ax.com...
And, just out of curiousity, how would one go about winding a
torroidal transformer?

DD> Assuming you could obtain a toroidal mains transformer core (those
DD> ferrite rings are not the same thing at all) you would have a
nightmare
DD> trying to wind it. They are factory wound using a long thin spool
DD> holding the enamelled wire which is fed through the hole in the
middle
DD> of the toroid over and over to get the right number of turns. You'd
DD> have to be a very determined hobbyist to build a toroid winder in the
DD> home!
DD> Unless, of course, someone knows another way of doing it...

Sure start with a transformer with a higher voltage rating than needed
and remove as many turns as required from the secondary. I've done this
a few times with big 1:1 transformers to bring them down to 50Vct. It's
solidly mounting the lead's that's the real bugger.
I actually meant another way of winding a toroidal transformer...

Dave
 
Kevin Aylward wrote:

ShrikeBack wrote:

Of course, it cant be proved that the universes exists without
someone to observe it, but the evidence suggests that when anyone
dies, the universe still exists.

Agreed.

Indeed.
-------------------------
Nonsense. The evidence, as currently and imperfectly viewed without
reasonable support may look that way, but it cannot be shown to be so.
In fact the "concrete assumption" reveals itself to be a superstitious
unsupportable conclusion.

If it cannot be proved, it is not true, it is an assumption based
on a poor understanding of natural law that will someday be remedied,
per the Correspondence Principle of Science.

Someday it will be well-recognized that the physical laws MUST include
the observer or they are not true, cannot be demonstrated in any but
a subjective circumstances, and that Personal Subjectivity is a firm
boundary condition upon the thing we call "Natural Physical Law".


Apparently RSW thinks otherwise. From time to time, I do observe
labourers building roads, bridges etc, it makes no rational sense that
these could all appear just for me.

Kevin Aylward
--------------------
If they had to appear other than when you saw them, you might be right,
but as strictly existing when you see them, they are just part of what
you are.

But I'm not promoting solipsism, even though the argument can support
it in a contorted fashion.

Instead I promote the notion of a Reality that has many facets, called
Ourselves, but whose natural laws are reflected ONLY in the nature of
these individuated facets, like a jewel. Natural laws need only provide
that what we see makes sense when we see it, and not at any other time.
Be honest!: There is NO way to prove the existence of anything you're
not able to see.

The Nature of Physical Law OBVIOUSLY includes that, because these
natural laws can ONLY come to their fruition within the context of
a subjective observation by a Being living their Lifetime, and in
the manner of all the moments of their life, centered upon their
awareness.
-Steve
--

Ok, all you philosophers. From among the following people, pick the individual
to pack the primary and emergency parachutes you will jump from 4000 m with
next hour:

1. Reality is as mental construct. There is no "there" if I'm not thinking
about it.

2. Uh, what?

3. What is your history of tipping?
webpa
 
James Sweet wrote:

how about stacking two bell xfmrs? the 18v model s/b close to what
you need and s/b cheap at Hdepot of Lowes. --Loren


You won't get enough current out of that for an amplifier, well unless it's
a rather small one.

Transformers can be stacked just fine though.
Bell transformers that I am failure with are designed to limit current
in case the secondary should become shorted. As such they have poor
voltage regulation with changing loads.

Bill K7NOM
 
its wrote:
As I expected, way more effort than I wanted to put into it. I can
get good quality 30VCT transformers very easily. According to James
Sweet it would be fine to stack these. Sounds like the solution I
need, these xformers are the right size and current I need, and
cheap...probably just do this. Thanks for all the good posts, Steve
On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 16:57:42 GMT, "Peter Gottlieb" <178048316@icq.net
wrote:
the actual output of a bell xfmr is higher w/no or light load, and as
others point out, drops significantly w/increased/short loading. but
with only a 1a requirement, you may still consider this option.
they also make (commonly avail) 24vac models designed for a/c, where
control wiring is longer. these put out about 36vac unloaded.

good luck, --Loren

There are a lot of design issues involved in winding a transformer - too
many to get into here in detail. Your basic issues are:

1) Core material and saturation level
2) Enough primary windings to get sufficient field but not saturate core.
3) Thickness of primary winding.
4) Isolation between primary and secondary.
5) Secondary winding - turns and thickness.
6) Losses and temperature rise.
7) Change of characteristics as temperature rises.
8) Making it fit on a particular core/bobbin.

Best would be to find a transformer of similar power level where the primary
is wound first and you can remove the secondary and replace with your own.

I have a big Excel spreadsheet somewhere which assists in transformer design
but I'm not sure I can still find it and it does require some knowledge and
experience to use.


its you> wrote in message
news:j6kkhv40l1gkmio6knr6s2kc64rdh7bbh7@4ax.com...
Kind of an off question, but I'm searching for a 60V CT (30-0-30)
transformer (1-2A is fine) for an amplifier I've been building. Would
I be better off just shelling out the cash and getting one, or is it
realtively easy to build your own (there are all sorts of torridial
cores avaliable at a local store, all for under 5$) I realize that
purchasing one would of course be the ideal situation, but I don't
particularily feel like spending 35$ for just a transformer... Anyone
have any recommendations where to look to buy one of these? Is
homebrewing one of these transformers relatively complicated? All
thoughs, including negative, are appreciated. Thanks in advance,
Steve
 
The regulator IC is Phillips TDA8380.


g_akhiri@yahoo.com (Gunta Zawawi gazElectric) wrote in message news:<e5a1bb0d.0307121803.637b6484@posting.google.com>...
I'm repairing Polytron TV. When the TV is turning on, it turn house's
AC power line circuit breaker (CB) off.

The power supply mode is SMPS (Switching Mode PS). The first problem,
I found that the NTC behind house's AC power line was blown. Then I
check that two diodes of the regulator bridge were in short. It was
clear that the two diodes cause a short circuit. So I change the NTC
and two diodes. I change the diodes with the same type diodes but, I
change the NTC with NTC taken from computer PC power supply.

After changing the diodes, there was no short circuits, and the AC
power line CB did not goes off. The TV was able to be turned on. It
takes a little bit long time to turn on the TV then a normal TV. After
it is turned on, it operates little fine(normal). But after about two
minutes after, it operates unnormal, the picture is blur and the sound
is creepy.

I check the TV again, at power supply section. I measure voltage to
flyback, and found that when the TV operates normaly, the voltage is
90 volt. After the two minutes it operates unnormally and I found that
the voltage to flyback is changed in random (abrupt) below 90 volt.
When I put the TV in standby mode, the voltage is normal, 90 volt.

The TV uses IC regulator from Phillips 8xxx. I am sorry, I forget the
chip code. I will check and find out and tell to the group soon.

I really hope for help repairing this TV. TIA

-gunta-
 
tfprusd@yahoo.com (tim) wrote in message news:<b609b525.0307171949.6f047e94@posting.google.com>...
Hello, I just purchased a Sony Wega KV-27FS100 monitor.
It was bought privately (no warranty) and was shipped to me.
after connecting everything and turning it on, I noticed a large red
fuzzy discoloration in the lower left quarter of the screen and a
green fuzzy blotch on the right side. I've moved all speakers /
magnetic sources away from the TV, and I tried using a degaussing
coil, both of these did not improve the problem.
I guess the next step should be to open the back and try making
adjustments? i really don't have any futher troubleshooting skills
(aside from teh above mentioned). Are there certain things I should
try to fix this problem? I'm guessing that something was whacked out
of alignment during shipping. The seller claims there was no
discoloration before he shipped the unit.
Any thoughts? thanks in advance.

-tim
thanks for all the responces!
 
idlemuse wrote:
"Kevin Aylward" <kevin@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<z_7Qa.19910$4O4.2190192@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net>...
ShrikeBack wrote:


I think the standard response is that the past is in some sense
infinite. Namely, that the rules themselves (such as logic, and
those governing quantum vacuum fluctuations) have always been here.

I have run across those who believe the past is infinte, though
not in the context of determinism. Moreover, usually, those people
are talking about physical existence. I tell those people that
if the past were infinite, there would have been an infinity
of passing time before the present. Saying something will not
occur until an eternity has passed is equivalent to saying that
it will never happen. Thus, the present would never have been
reached.


This logic is inherently not usable. Its a 101 math standard fallacy.
When one discusses infinite, in general, all bets are off. Its only
specific examples that can be handled, by taking the limit as x-
infinite, and this requires that the function be continuous. Most
logic deduced by assuming infinite leads to contradictions, e.g.
1=0, so you simply can't use an argument like the one you describe
above.

I actually prefer the idea that the universe has always existed, like
the continuous big bang and big crunch cycle e.g.

1 Fact, there is mass-energy in the universe.
2 If there was a time when there was no mass-energy, i.e. truly zero
content to the universe, how could this mass-energy come into sudden
existence.?

A *true* empty universe, could not have an effect, by assumption, to
spark the mass energy creation. Note, a *true* *empty* universe is
also zero ZPE, by definition.

If an effect could happen without any cause whatsoever, i.e. magic,
this last objection can be ignored. However, despite my claim on what
standard QM states, I don't personally believe in magic.

You, however, are not referring to physical time, but something
else, where the rules wait in an eternal timelessness for the
moment of creation, in a manner of speaking. I am not convinced
that time can exist without events,

It cant. Time is nothing more then noting that something is in a
different position than it was before. For example, going back in
time is nothing more than putting all objects back in the same place
as they were before, except youself.

though, just as some have
claimed that space cannot exist without matter.

If by space you mean x,y,z distance, it doesn't. It cant. You cant,
in principle, determine position without mass-energy to mark
reference points.

If a rule
of logic exists in the void, but there is no one there to think
about it, does it really exist at all?

Thinking, i.e consciousness is irrelevant to existence. All
mass-energy is under the same rules of physics. Consciousness is no
different, it cant be. It is not special. All this conscious stuff
that abounds in some expositions of QM is all nonsense. It comes
from when people were daft enough to have ideas of souls and spirits
and other such nebulous nonsense. Consciousness is a result of
normal physical processes, it can't be any other way, well unless
you believe in magic.

Of course, it cant be proved that the universes exists without
someone to observe it, but the evidence suggests that when anyone
dies, the universe still exists.


Any thoughts on the ontology of time and energy independent concepts?
I am a materialist, much as you have described yourself to be here,
yet I have this nagging feeling that in some sense some ideals exist.

For example, take the rule that A --> A. Does this rule exist in the
absence of material? Looking at logical constructs leaves me with the
feeling that the idealists will say, 'A-ha! The ideal governs your
perceptions of the material. Identity in logic is fundamental.'
Materialists then have a strange argument to make. They can say that
logic does not exist per se, they can say that logic exists as only as
a construct of a material consciousness, or they can say that identity
in logic does exist independent of material.

These are the three I have come up with, anyway, and it seems to me
that each has an inherent conflict with the materialist thesis.

Is there another answer?
I am not sure I understand what you are saying correctly. My view is
that space and time can not exist without mass-energy. Space is simple
the notion that objects exist in different positions, i.e. if all
objects occupied the same space, we could not identify another position.
Time is simple the notion that an object has changed its position, that
is if all objects stopped moving, time would have stopped. Without
objects you can't determine a distance, without a distance change, you
can't determine a time interval. Note that *all* measurements,
ultimately require a position measurement.

I also take the view that, although our model of the universe is "A free
creation of the human mind" - Einstein, that is, they may be more than
one model to describe the universe, I take it that what the models
describe exist, and exists independent of any model, or consciousness.
To assume otherwise, is a major complication.

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.
 
I wouldn't use bell transformers for this project, a local shop sells
good xformers designed for projects such as this at about 6$, just at
30VCT instead of 60. Kind of related, I've been using a bell
transformer for a power supply for quite some time now (simple LM317
circuit), provides a good 1.5A at around 22V continuiously. I'm sure
if I upped the current w/ a more hefty regulator circuit it would fail
quickly, but it's worked for a few years now w/ no sign of giving up
(I don't really care if it does, no big loss, but it's a nice under
table supply w/ the switched potentiometer sticking out, provides for
a quick 1.2-22VDC. Again, thanks for the posts, especially for
driving me away from the torroidal idea, i'm sure it would have ended
up in a headache and much wasted wire. Thanks, Steve
On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 23:41:03 GMT, lcoe <lcoe@c1932201-a.attbi.com>
wrote:

its wrote:
As I expected, way more effort than I wanted to put into it. I can
get good quality 30VCT transformers very easily. According to James
Sweet it would be fine to stack these. Sounds like the solution I
need, these xformers are the right size and current I need, and
cheap...probably just do this. Thanks for all the good posts, Steve
On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 16:57:42 GMT, "Peter Gottlieb" <178048316@icq.net
wrote:

the actual output of a bell xfmr is higher w/no or light load, and as
others point out, drops significantly w/increased/short loading. but
with only a 1a requirement, you may still consider this option.
they also make (commonly avail) 24vac models designed for a/c, where
control wiring is longer. these put out about 36vac unloaded.

good luck, --Loren

There are a lot of design issues involved in winding a transformer - too
many to get into here in detail. Your basic issues are:

1) Core material and saturation level
2) Enough primary windings to get sufficient field but not saturate core.
3) Thickness of primary winding.
4) Isolation between primary and secondary.
5) Secondary winding - turns and thickness.
6) Losses and temperature rise.
7) Change of characteristics as temperature rises.
8) Making it fit on a particular core/bobbin.

Best would be to find a transformer of similar power level where the primary
is wound first and you can remove the secondary and replace with your own.

I have a big Excel spreadsheet somewhere which assists in transformer design
but I'm not sure I can still find it and it does require some knowledge and
experience to use.


its you> wrote in message
news:j6kkhv40l1gkmio6knr6s2kc64rdh7bbh7@4ax.com...
Kind of an off question, but I'm searching for a 60V CT (30-0-30)
transformer (1-2A is fine) for an amplifier I've been building. Would
I be better off just shelling out the cash and getting one, or is it
realtively easy to build your own (there are all sorts of torridial
cores avaliable at a local store, all for under 5$) I realize that
purchasing one would of course be the ideal situation, but I don't
particularily feel like spending 35$ for just a transformer... Anyone
have any recommendations where to look to buy one of these? Is
homebrewing one of these transformers relatively complicated? All
thoughs, including negative, are appreciated. Thanks in advance,
Steve
 
idlemuse wrote:
"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message news:<3F1737A3.727D@armory.com>...
Kevin Aylward wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:
ShrikeBack wrote:

I am aware, too, that my preceding argument only deals with the
epistemological problem of predictability. It is quite possible
that the universe is still utterly deterministic, according to
this argument, but it would be impossible, in spite of that, for
any means of total predictability to devised.
------------------------------
And we see that prediction, with any perfect result, is impossible,
merely and IF ONLY because we are finite and we die! The only way
that Reality occurs is in the form of an individual's own Life,
as they experience it.


I also have this vague impression that there is a category of things
that exist on the one hand and the category of all things (including
rules) that might exist on the other. I don't know that if we limit
our universe to just the former that Godel even applies.

Under determinism, all events could, in principle, be described
with algorithms, at least on the local level. This seems to me
to be true, though I have no rigorous proof. Thus the universe
itself could be considered isomorphic to some formal system.
If that is true, then a deterministic Universe is either
inconsistent or incomplete in the same sense as whatever formal
system maps to it must be, by a previously shown result.
------------------------------
No algorithm can ever be shown to be infinitely accurate as to
predicting outcomes. This is both obvious because of subjective
phenomenology and because of Goedel's Incompleteness,

Nonsense. Goedel has nothing to do with the ability of an *accurate*
prediction. Goedel, essentially says, that to have for example, a TOE,
it will consist of a number of separate axioms, that are not derivable
from anything else. i.e. You have to accept the underpinnings of your
TOE on faith, with only the consequences being "proved" from those
axioms.
-------------
Another way to look at it. Same thing.
Just a way of saying that nothing is perfect.


which I
see as the two faces of a coin!

Obviously with only one eye.
---------------------
Nonsense. You truncated the part that makes this obvious, quit being
a disingenuous piece of self-serving shit!


You, however, are not referring to physical time, but something
else, where the rules wait in an eternal timelessness for the
moment of creation, in a manner of speaking. I am not convinced
that time can exist without events, though, just as some have
claimed that space cannot exist without matter. If a rule
of logic exists in the void, but there is no one there to think
about it, does it really exist at all?
----------------------------------
Time is NOT a continuum! Time is strictly subjective, it exists
in no other form!!

Not at all. If any object has changed its position in any manner, time
has changed. Its objective. It dose not depend on anyone's particular
view. It nothing moves, time has stopped, for everyone.
Kevin Aylward
----------------------------
There is NO way to perceive ANYTHING that is not solely subjective.
-Steve

Steve,

I have to say it has been a while since I have discussed anything with
a real honest to golly idealist - and I found one on an engineer's
board of all things!

Is your position basically Berkeley's, or is there some element of
materialism in there?
---------------------------
No, it is Berkeley's, but without Free Will, which is silly. We are
as caused as any other chemical reaction, even though all such are
as subjective as the rest of "the world". The rules are still as
observed by experiment, just non-existent when not perceived. As
for "Free Will", to have such we'd have to be able to change our
beliefs without a reason, merely as an exercise, and of course, we
cannot, so we do NOT have "Free Whim". We are caused, and if we
COULD change what we believe on a whim, then we could change the
world we believed we are in and then we'd obviously be elsewhere,
and elsewhen, and in another universe, and we'd be someone else as
well by that fact! "No Free Will", we find, is then the very Boundary
Between Separate Beings.


The first question that comes to mind is how you address relativity.
Isn't time dilation suggestive to you of that time is an objective
measureable? If we can reconcile the thing as being different in
different reference frames, aren't we suggesting that there is
something external that you and I are both experiencing?
----------------
No.
All is subjective, by definition, no matter the inherent rules.
And all other instances of different application of the rules are
speculations that don't occur. Only one future happens to us. And
Being in a Life the only way anything happens at all.
-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
 
Kevin Aylward wrote:
idlemuse wrote:
"Kevin Aylward" <kevin@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<z_7Qa.19910$4O4.2190192@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net>...
ShrikeBack wrote:


I think the standard response is that the past is in some sense
infinite. Namely, that the rules themselves (such as logic, and
those governing quantum vacuum fluctuations) have always been here.

I have run across those who believe the past is infinte, though
not in the context of determinism. Moreover, usually, those people
are talking about physical existence. I tell those people that
if the past were infinite, there would have been an infinity
of passing time before the present. Saying something will not
occur until an eternity has passed is equivalent to saying that
it will never happen. Thus, the present would never have been
reached.


This logic is inherently not usable. Its a 101 math standard fallacy.
When one discusses infinite, in general, all bets are off. Its only
specific examples that can be handled, by taking the limit as x-
infinite, and this requires that the function be continuous. Most
logic deduced by assuming infinite leads to contradictions, e.g.
1=0, so you simply can't use an argument like the one you describe
above.

I actually prefer the idea that the universe has always existed, like
the continuous big bang and big crunch cycle e.g.

1 Fact, there is mass-energy in the universe.
2 If there was a time when there was no mass-energy, i.e. truly zero
content to the universe, how could this mass-energy come into sudden
existence.?

A *true* empty universe, could not have an effect, by assumption, to
spark the mass energy creation. Note, a *true* *empty* universe is
also zero ZPE, by definition.

If an effect could happen without any cause whatsoever, i.e. magic,
this last objection can be ignored. However, despite my claim on what
standard QM states, I don't personally believe in magic.

You, however, are not referring to physical time, but something
else, where the rules wait in an eternal timelessness for the
moment of creation, in a manner of speaking. I am not convinced
that time can exist without events,

It cant. Time is nothing more then noting that something is in a
different position than it was before. For example, going back in
time is nothing more than putting all objects back in the same place
as they were before, except youself.

though, just as some have
claimed that space cannot exist without matter.

If by space you mean x,y,z distance, it doesn't. It cant. You cant,
in principle, determine position without mass-energy to mark
reference points.

If a rule
of logic exists in the void, but there is no one there to think
about it, does it really exist at all?

Thinking, i.e consciousness is irrelevant to existence. All
mass-energy is under the same rules of physics. Consciousness is no
different, it cant be. It is not special. All this conscious stuff
that abounds in some expositions of QM is all nonsense. It comes
from when people were daft enough to have ideas of souls and spirits
and other such nebulous nonsense. Consciousness is a result of
normal physical processes, it can't be any other way, well unless
you believe in magic.

Of course, it cant be proved that the universes exists without
someone to observe it, but the evidence suggests that when anyone
dies, the universe still exists.


Any thoughts on the ontology of time and energy independent concepts?
I am a materialist, much as you have described yourself to be here,
yet I have this nagging feeling that in some sense some ideals exist.

For example, take the rule that A --> A. Does this rule exist in the
absence of material? Looking at logical constructs leaves me with the
feeling that the idealists will say, 'A-ha! The ideal governs your
perceptions of the material. Identity in logic is fundamental.'
Materialists then have a strange argument to make. They can say that
logic does not exist per se, they can say that logic exists as only as
a construct of a material consciousness, or they can say that identity
in logic does exist independent of material.

These are the three I have come up with, anyway, and it seems to me
that each has an inherent conflict with the materialist thesis.

Is there another answer?

I am not sure I understand what you are saying correctly. My view is
that space and time can not exist without mass-energy. Space is simple
the notion that objects exist in different positions, i.e. if all
objects occupied the same space, we could not identify another position.
Time is simple the notion that an object has changed its position, that
is if all objects stopped moving, time would have stopped. Without
objects you can't determine a distance, without a distance change, you
can't determine a time interval. Note that *all* measurements,
ultimately require a position measurement.
---------------
That's all thinking inside the box! You can't even escape the box
the way you're going!


I also take the view that, although our model of the universe is "A free
creation of the human mind" - Einstein, that is, they may be more than
one model to describe the universe, I take it that what the models
describe exist, and exists independent of any model, or consciousness.
To assume otherwise, is a major complication.
Kevin Aylward
-------------------
No, it's no problem for THIS physicist, why would YOU think it is??
Hmmm?
-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
 
Kevin Aylward wrote:
R. Steve Walz wrote:
Kevin Aylward wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:


Its supported by the
10000's of bridges, millions of buildings, millions of roads, etc.
etc, all obviously designed and made by a consciousness, and such
that they could not have reasonable been built during my known
lifetime.
---------------------------------
But they don't exist when you're not looking at them.

Prove it.
-------------------
Not needed, YOU'RE asserting something you can't prove, the burden
is yours!


Nor do they need to be "built again" for them to exist again.

If they don't exist, when not looking, then exist when looking, then
this is de facto that they need to be rebuilt. Dah..dont exist.. Dah..do
exist...
----------------------
The notion of "built" is within the seen world, I'm speaking of the
seen-ness beyond it. Yes, if it were torn-down it would need
re-building, but it's not "removed", it simply doesn't exist.


Jesus wept dude.
--------------------
I'm not a Xtian, bud.


There's nothing wrong with them not being there when you're not
looking. You don't need them then!

It makes for a very complicated description of the universe. I prefer
Ocuums razor on this one.
------------------------
The simplicity has to follow the subjective perception, or you have
NO DATA!


If it cannot be proved, it is not true,

Goedel says otherwise. You just don't seem to get this do you.
---------------------------------------
Goedel says it's not forbidden, which doesn't make it mandatory.
That's all.

Thats right, but you take the assumption that *nothing* is every true
without proof.
---------------------------------
No. I merely say what we see. You don't LIKE what you see, so you
invent phony stories about it that are easier for you to remember.


What I'm saying need not be proven either to be right.

It needs to be shown to be a useful view of the world. It isn't. Its
pretty much universally accepted that the universe is pretty much as we
see it. It allows me to make appointments with people who I don't happen
to see all the time.
------------------------------------
I have no trouble using approximations either, and the approximation
that the world can be ignored as to whether it exists or not when we're
not looking is a useful one, but it is also useful to see the universe
for what it is, which is something that is NOT there when you're NOT
LOOKING!


it is an assumption based
on a poor understanding of natural law that will someday be
remedied,

Its based on a trivial application of the known laws. to wit, an
average brickie has 6 coffee breaks, plus lunch and afternoon tea,
leaving approximately 2hrs 45 minutes to swing his trawl.
-------------------------------------
Useless blathering again.

No, it points out the tremendous amount of useful knowledge and assumed
structure of the universe that would have to be given up by your
approach, for no sound reason.
--------------------------
I give up nothing. I merely state what is seen. The same models are
exactly as useful, but you are not in error with my method, and it
MAY be CRITICAL later as to improving our view!


per the Correspondence Principle of Science.

Someday it will be well-recognized that the physical laws MUST
include the observer or they are not true,

They already do and it is already well recognised. There is no
distinction whatsoever between the observed and the observer. They
are all made up of the same electrons, protons, Swiss cheese etc.
-----------------------------------
Nope. Stuff is something you sense, but what you are is thought.

Thought is nothing more than a physical process, centred in the brain,
just as any other physical process.
------------------------------
You've seen thoughts, in fact you're never seen anything else.


Now sensing is also just thought, but a separable category.


cannot be demonstrated in any but
a subjective circumstances, and that Personal Subjectivity is a firm
boundary condition upon the thing we call "Natural Physical Law".

Nonsense, wea generally all agree on things like 1, 2 ,3 etc..this is
objective.
----------------------------------
You see people saying that. Your subjective perception and belief.
You cannot prove anyone but you exists,

Ho humm. So what. You can't prove that only you exists. All, evidance
points to the contary.
--------------------------
Nope, it does not. Things still disappear when you close your eyes.
And when other people visit those places "at the same time" it ISN'T
even at the same time, because it is in THEIR Life, and NOT YOURS!


you merely like the notion.

My emotions have zero to do with it.
--------------------
Oh yes they do!


Apparently RSW thinks otherwise. From time to time, I do observe
labourers building roads, bridges etc, it makes no rational sense
that these could all appear just for me.

Kevin Aylward
--------------------
If they had to appear other than when you saw them, you might be
right, but as strictly existing when you see them, they are just
part of what you are.

It makes no sense whatsoever, for things to disappear just because
they went out of my field of view.
------------------------
Have you ever seen "outside your field of view"? Of course not, you
CAN'T!

So what. The assumption that objects exist outside our view *never*
leads to contradictions. Absolutely never, so, its a very, very, good
assumption to make. To the contrary, to assume that objects don't exist
outside our view makes for a horrendous complication in understanding
even why it rains.
-----------------------------
Not at all. The rules are such that it must seem all-available, but
that is not provable, and never is! The fact that it is NEVER provable
is notable! Understanding the Universe and the Self is the result of
my view, as WELL as the World as Seen.


You have been completely suckered by this trivial notion of what you see
is green is not what I see as green etc...
---------------
Now that's an important thing to understand, because you may need to
realize that the world looks different to others sometime.


Sure, its an idea to discuss
down the pub, but is an entirely useless idea in practice. It has no
worth whatsoever. It has *never* lead to anything of use.
------------------
That's not even true, just consider color-blindness!


Sure, this could happen, in a the silly,
daft, absurd universe you live in, but certainly not for us sane
people.
--------------------------
You're claiming that your notional concept is somehow more sane
than mine which limits itself to observation.

It is.
----------------------------------
No, it's just more simplistic.


Look, any child of 3 starts to learn that there is continuity in
objects. They don't get destroyed when you place them in a box. It
matters not one iota that it cant be proved. *You* cannot *prove*
otherwise.
-------------------------
As I said, a simplistic notion. Do you believe everything 3 y/o's
say?


But I'm not promoting solipsism, even though the argument can
support it in a contorted fashion.

Your supporting the nuthouse view of the universe.
-------------------------
No, it still works just fine.

No, it doesn't. There is no laws of physics with this view. No
conservation of mass-energy for example. Without laws of physics, we can
predict nothing. All you have is an ad-hoc collection of results. Its a
truly useless view of the universe
---------------------------------
It's what we actually have. The laws of conservation say that when you
measure it you'll find it all, that's ALL they say!


It simply sees natural law as participatory, and concreteness of
the physical as undemonstrable, which it is.


No. It removes physics. Period.
-------------------------------
Since I use physics, I know better, and you do too.


Instead I promote the notion of a Reality that has many facets,
called Ourselves, but whose natural laws are reflected ONLY in the
nature of these individuated facets, like a jewel. Natural laws
need only provide that what we see makes sense when we see it, and
not at any other time. Be honest!:

Nonsense. They need to make sense consistently.
-------------------------------
Makes fine sense to me,

Because your not sane.
------------------------
Then why are you speaking to me?
You see, that's nonsense.


things will be here when they have to be,
reliably, as always, I simply won't be entertaining silly assumptions
about when I'm not looking.


They are not silly assumptions. They are assumptions that *always* work.
End of story.
-------------------------
No, you don't see when you're not looking.


You are a right bloody idiot.
------------------
You're right bloody desperate and pitiable when you get this way.
You abandon reason and lash out like a toddler.

You cant reason with a bigoted idiot. Nah.Nah....Nah.Nah...Nah.....


There is NO way to prove the existence of
anything you're not able to see.

Irrelevant.
----------------------
Perhaps, but true. The danger of assumptions is too much for a
genuine scientist to merely stand by for.

Utter garbage. You have no idea of what a scientist or science is all
about.
---------------
The University of California disagrees with you.


There is nothing wrong with assumptions. All scientists use them.
Special relativity is based on two simple assumptions. QM is based on a
few simple assumptions. The kinetic theory of gasses is based on simple
assumptions. *All* of science is based on assumptions. Without
assumptions, we would have nothing.
-----------------------
Agreed, but even an idiot knows, don't assume what you don't have to,
or you'll probably be billed for it at some point!


The issue is whether or not the assumptions are well founded or not.
Yours, i.e., that nothing exists unless you observe it, isn't. Its wild
speculation, without any evidence to support it whatsoever.

Kevin Aylward
----------------
Except reality itself.

Annoying, that!
-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
 
Kevin Aylward wrote:
Kevin Aylward wrote:
R. Steve Walz wrote:
Kevin Aylward wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:


Its supported by the
10000's of bridges, millions of buildings, millions of roads, etc.
etc, all obviously designed and made by a consciousness, and such
that they could not have reasonable been built during my known
lifetime.
---------------------------------
But they don't exist when you're not looking at them.


One also needs to point out the obvious here. There is *never* a time
when you aren't looking or observing everthing in the universe, so you
whole belief system is completely vacuous. Your arguing about a
situation that cannot ever occur, not ever in this universe.
-----------------------------------
That's silly. You're sure you want to say that?

Are you alseep?


An observer is *anything* that can detect *any* effect whatsoever. The
empire state building's gravitational field is having an effect on me
here in the uk. The em fields generated by you typing at your computer
effect my monitor. Of course, these effects are small, but the principle
remains the same. Objects are always, connected to every other object in
the universe, although with a delay. This connection means that you are
always an observer of everything.

Kevin Aylward
----------------------------
Nope. You sure you graduated?
-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
 
"Kevin Aylward" <kevin@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message news:<CrLSa.20$3t4.11@newsfep1-gui.server.ntli.net>...
idlemuse wrote:
"Kevin Aylward" <kevin@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<z_7Qa.19910$4O4.2190192@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net>...
ShrikeBack wrote:


I think the standard response is that the past is in some sense
infinite. Namely, that the rules themselves (such as logic, and
those governing quantum vacuum fluctuations) have always been here.

I have run across those who believe the past is infinte, though
not in the context of determinism. Moreover, usually, those people
are talking about physical existence. I tell those people that
if the past were infinite, there would have been an infinity
of passing time before the present. Saying something will not
occur until an eternity has passed is equivalent to saying that
it will never happen. Thus, the present would never have been
reached.


This logic is inherently not usable. Its a 101 math standard fallacy.
When one discusses infinite, in general, all bets are off. Its only
specific examples that can be handled, by taking the limit as x-
infinite, and this requires that the function be continuous. Most
logic deduced by assuming infinite leads to contradictions, e.g.
1=0, so you simply can't use an argument like the one you describe
above.

I actually prefer the idea that the universe has always existed, like
the continuous big bang and big crunch cycle e.g.

1 Fact, there is mass-energy in the universe.
2 If there was a time when there was no mass-energy, i.e. truly zero
content to the universe, how could this mass-energy come into sudden
existence.?

A *true* empty universe, could not have an effect, by assumption, to
spark the mass energy creation. Note, a *true* *empty* universe is
also zero ZPE, by definition.

If an effect could happen without any cause whatsoever, i.e. magic,
this last objection can be ignored. However, despite my claim on what
standard QM states, I don't personally believe in magic.

You, however, are not referring to physical time, but something
else, where the rules wait in an eternal timelessness for the
moment of creation, in a manner of speaking. I am not convinced
that time can exist without events,

It cant. Time is nothing more then noting that something is in a
different position than it was before. For example, going back in
time is nothing more than putting all objects back in the same place
as they were before, except youself.

though, just as some have
claimed that space cannot exist without matter.

If by space you mean x,y,z distance, it doesn't. It cant. You cant,
in principle, determine position without mass-energy to mark
reference points.

If a rule
of logic exists in the void, but there is no one there to think
about it, does it really exist at all?

Thinking, i.e consciousness is irrelevant to existence. All
mass-energy is under the same rules of physics. Consciousness is no
different, it cant be. It is not special. All this conscious stuff
that abounds in some expositions of QM is all nonsense. It comes
from when people were daft enough to have ideas of souls and spirits
and other such nebulous nonsense. Consciousness is a result of
normal physical processes, it can't be any other way, well unless
you believe in magic.

Of course, it cant be proved that the universes exists without
someone to observe it, but the evidence suggests that when anyone
dies, the universe still exists.


Any thoughts on the ontology of time and energy independent concepts?
I am a materialist, much as you have described yourself to be here,
yet I have this nagging feeling that in some sense some ideals exist.

For example, take the rule that A --> A. Does this rule exist in the
absence of material? Looking at logical constructs leaves me with the
feeling that the idealists will say, 'A-ha! The ideal governs your
perceptions of the material. Identity in logic is fundamental.'
Materialists then have a strange argument to make. They can say that
logic does not exist per se, they can say that logic exists as only as
a construct of a material consciousness, or they can say that identity
in logic does exist independent of material.

These are the three I have come up with, anyway, and it seems to me
that each has an inherent conflict with the materialist thesis.

Is there another answer?

I am not sure I understand what you are saying correctly. My view is
that space and time can not exist without mass-energy. Space is simple
the notion that objects exist in different positions, i.e. if all
objects occupied the same space, we could not identify another position.
Time is simple the notion that an object has changed its position, that
is if all objects stopped moving, time would have stopped. Without
objects you can't determine a distance, without a distance change, you
can't determine a time interval. Note that *all* measurements,
ultimately require a position measurement.

I also take the view that, although our model of the universe is "A free
creation of the human mind" - Einstein, that is, they may be more than
one model to describe the universe, I take it that what the models
describe exist, and exists independent of any model, or consciousness.
To assume otherwise, is a major complication.
I agree with all of this. The question is, do the rules themselves
exist in a significant way? Some rules are only meaningful in the
presence of mass-energy, such as conservation laws, but others seem to
have meaning whether or not mass-energy is here.

For the materialist, everything is stuff. Consciousness is an artifact
of stuff being arranged in a certain manner, and it does not exist
independently of that stuff.

Do the rules of logic, for example that A implies A, exist
independently of material stuff? If so, we can't really be
materialists.

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.
 
R. Steve Walz wrote:
Kevin Aylward wrote:

idlemuse wrote:
"Kevin Aylward" <kevin@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<z_7Qa.19910$4O4.2190192@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net>...
ShrikeBack wrote:


I think the standard response is that the past is in some sense
infinite. Namely, that the rules themselves (such as logic, and
those governing quantum vacuum fluctuations) have always been
here.

I have run across those who believe the past is infinte, though
not in the context of determinism. Moreover, usually, those people
are talking about physical existence. I tell those people that
if the past were infinite, there would have been an infinity
of passing time before the present. Saying something will not
occur until an eternity has passed is equivalent to saying that
it will never happen. Thus, the present would never have been
reached.


This logic is inherently not usable. Its a 101 math standard
fallacy. When one discusses infinite, in general, all bets are
off. Its only specific examples that can be handled, by taking the
limit as x-> infinite, and this requires that the function be
continuous. Most logic deduced by assuming infinite leads to
contradictions, e.g. 1=0, so you simply can't use an argument like
the one you describe above.

I actually prefer the idea that the universe has always existed,
like the continuous big bang and big crunch cycle e.g.

1 Fact, there is mass-energy in the universe.
2 If there was a time when there was no mass-energy, i.e. truly
zero content to the universe, how could this mass-energy come into
sudden existence.?

A *true* empty universe, could not have an effect, by assumption,
to spark the mass energy creation. Note, a *true* *empty* universe
is also zero ZPE, by definition.

If an effect could happen without any cause whatsoever, i.e. magic,
this last objection can be ignored. However, despite my claim on
what standard QM states, I don't personally believe in magic.

You, however, are not referring to physical time, but something
else, where the rules wait in an eternal timelessness for the
moment of creation, in a manner of speaking. I am not convinced
that time can exist without events,

It cant. Time is nothing more then noting that something is in a
different position than it was before. For example, going back in
time is nothing more than putting all objects back in the same
place as they were before, except youself.

though, just as some have
claimed that space cannot exist without matter.

If by space you mean x,y,z distance, it doesn't. It cant. You cant,
in principle, determine position without mass-energy to mark
reference points.

If a rule
of logic exists in the void, but there is no one there to think
about it, does it really exist at all?

Thinking, i.e consciousness is irrelevant to existence. All
mass-energy is under the same rules of physics. Consciousness is no
different, it cant be. It is not special. All this conscious stuff
that abounds in some expositions of QM is all nonsense. It comes
from when people were daft enough to have ideas of souls and
spirits and other such nebulous nonsense. Consciousness is a
result of normal physical processes, it can't be any other way,
well unless you believe in magic.

Of course, it cant be proved that the universes exists without
someone to observe it, but the evidence suggests that when anyone
dies, the universe still exists.


Any thoughts on the ontology of time and energy independent
concepts? I am a materialist, much as you have described yourself
to be here, yet I have this nagging feeling that in some sense some
ideals exist.

For example, take the rule that A --> A. Does this rule exist in
the absence of material? Looking at logical constructs leaves me
with the feeling that the idealists will say, 'A-ha! The ideal
governs your perceptions of the material. Identity in logic is
fundamental.' Materialists then have a strange argument to make.
They can say that logic does not exist per se, they can say that
logic exists as only as a construct of a material consciousness, or
they can say that identity in logic does exist independent of
material.

These are the three I have come up with, anyway, and it seems to me
that each has an inherent conflict with the materialist thesis.

Is there another answer?

I am not sure I understand what you are saying correctly. My view is
that space and time can not exist without mass-energy. Space is
simple the notion that objects exist in different positions, i.e. if
all objects occupied the same space, we could not identify another
position. Time is simple the notion that an object has changed its
position, that is if all objects stopped moving, time would have
stopped. Without objects you can't determine a distance, without a
distance change, you can't determine a time interval. Note that
*all* measurements, ultimately require a position measurement.
---------------
That's all thinking inside the box! You can't even escape the box
the way you're going!
Oh...

Care to define position without mass-energy.
Care to define time without mass-energy.


I also take the view that, although our model of the universe is "A
free creation of the human mind" - Einstein, that is, they may be
more than one model to describe the universe, I take it that what
the models describe exist, and exists independent of any model, or
consciousness. To assume otherwise, is a major complication.
Kevin Aylward
-------------------
No, it's no problem for THIS physicist,
Because you too stupid to see the issues involved.

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.
 
I know here in the US we have Audio Buffs who swear by these quarter inch
units. I one time had a homeless guy come buy and bring me one from a
Dumpster , and I gave him $10 for dropping it off. Needless to say it made
him happy.

I had it in my shop for about 2 months, awaiting time to get to it, when
another customer called , and asked for one. I told him I didnt know if it
even worked & did not even have a Test Tape Reel to find out. He had me
bring it over, and he hooked up one of his tapes to it, and it played ok,
except a VU Meter was Dead...which he didnt mind. He gave me $50 USD for it
right there.


Try Ebay...or do a Google Search for thae Model Number, and then inquire to
the Sites which seem to be knowledgable about those Decks. Perhaps one of
them is willing to pay shipping so you can get rid of them..



"Neil Mallam" <mallam@uk.ibm.com> wrote in message
news:3F1BBD2C.2050805@uk.ibm.com...
I have a couple of these tape decks that have been in storage for 10 yrs
or so. They need some attention now to get them working again. I want to
dispose of them, but seems a shame to just dump them. Does anyone
know of anyone in the UK that may be interested in servicing/repairing
these and then selling them?
Thanks.
 
Neil Mallam wrote:

I have a couple of these tape decks that have been in storage for 10 yrs
or so. They need some attention now to get them working again. I want to
dispose of them, but seems a shame to just dump them. Does anyone
know of anyone in the UK that may be interested in servicing/repairing
these and then selling them?
Thanks.
I have one. It's a mechanical nightmare inside, but it is fun when it works
properly.
However, if the heads are worn, it's game over. You could check your heads and
if
they are good sell them separately, you'll save on shipping hassles.
 
On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 15:58:59 GMT, Doug Taylor <techno2nospam@videotron.ca> wrote:
Imagine if you bought a car for $30,000 and in 1 year it
was worth $15,000 and in 2 years it was valued at $5,000.
That's exactly what happens in the world of computers today.
You buy a new system for $3,000 and in 2 years it's worth
$500. and in three it's a worthless antique.
Imagine drooling over a $30,000 car and being able to buy it, IN PERFECT
CONDITION, 5 years later for $5,000. Would you consider that so horrible?
How about in 8 years for $500, again in perfect brand new condition?

<rest of pathetic whining snipped>
 
If the system works with the ram installed in the other two sockets then use it
that way. As far as replacing the socket itself, without the proper equipment I
would not try it. The board is a multilayer type and wthout the proper
desoldering tools permanent damage to the board could occur.
 

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top