Toshiba TV29C90 problem; Image fades to black...

[Donald Holman]

My apologies ... didn't realize this was a text only newsgroup.



Jim Adney <jadney@vwtype3.org> wrote in
news:cmikk0tpl0sknreu7sdp81puv83min16q7@4ax.com:

Please don't post pictures to ASCII newsgroups.

-
-----------------------------------------------
Jim Adney jadney@vwtype3.org
Madison, WI 53711 USA
-----------------------------------------------

 

[Jerry G.]

The fault is in the CRT bias circuits, or screen supply, or the CRT itself.
You should get the set properly checked out by a trained TV service tech.
The fault is not in the service menu.

--

Jerry G.
==========================


"Marc Bouchard" <newsgroups@animekaNOJUNK.net> wrote in message
news:wU05d.79300$z74.824733@wagner.videotron.net...
Hi everybody,

my tv fades to black (and back to the image then black forever)... Anyone
has seen this? Anyone with a service manual for this model? Doing a search
on the net only comes up with remotes for sale...

Thanks!

Marc

 

[Tom MacIntyre]

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 18:06:55 -0400, "Marc Bouchard"
<newsgroups@animekaNOJUNK.net> wrote:

Hi everybody,

my tv fades to black (and back to the image then black forever)... Anyone
has seen this? Anyone with a service manual for this model? Doing a search
on the net only comes up with remotes for sale...

Thanks!

Marc

Fade to black is almost always a heater problem, bad solder. Don't go
inside if you don't know what to look for. It isn't rocket science,
but it requires a particular skillset and knowledgebase.

Tom

 

[David T. Croft, Ph.D.]

Can anyone provide more details about the above reaction? Is the Na
consumed? What are the other products?

www.AdsorptionProcessModeling.com



"David Harper" <dave.harper@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:364fd697.0407260330.2e80cf5c@posting.google.com...

Dan Bloomquist <EXTRApublic20@lakeweb.com> wrote in message
news:<4103F281.8090806@lakeweb.com>...

Fine, further discussion of hydrogen as a fuel won't get us anywhere.
However, I can't let the following comments slide.

David Harper wrote:
So you're stating that super/hypersonic flight was a "known physics"
in 1950? Maybe you should re-read the above quote:

"The U.S. rocket program hit a wall in the late 1940's due to a lack
of understanding of supersonic physics."

You seem to be hanging your hopes for hydrogen on this journalist's
words.

If you'd read the article, you'd realize he wasn't a journalist, but a
*professor* in physics.

Here is the timeline supersonic science:

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4219/Chapter3.html

Notice that the fine tuning of Mach's work was done in the 30s. Now date
Mach...

This is another outlandish statement. If Mach's work had been "fine
tuned" in the 30's, the following would not have happened (by the way,
this is from the source *YOU* cited):

"The general aeronautics community was suddenly awakened to the
realities of the unknown flight regime in November 1941, when Lockheed
test pilot Ralph Virden could not pull the new, high-performance P-38
out of a high-speed dive, and crashed."

After this incident:
"Indeed, it was time for real airplanes to be used to probe the
mysteries of the unknown transonic gap. It was time for the high-speed
research airplane to become a reality."

(again, from your own source)

Mach did some groundbreaking work, but showing shock waves on a bullet
isn't all the info NASA needed on HYPERsonic flow to go to the moon.

From *YOUR OWN* article:

"John Stack nicely summarized the situation in 1938:

The development of the knowledge of compressible-flow phenomena,
particularly as related to aeronautical applications, has been
attended by considerable difficulty. The complicated nature of the
phenomena has resulted in little theoretical progress, and, in
general, recourse to experiment has been necessary. Until recently the
most important experimental results have been obtained in connection
with the science of ballistics, but this information has been of
little value in aeronautical problems because the range of speeds for
which most ballistic experiments have been made extends from the speed
of sound upward; whereas the important region in aeronautics at the
present time extends from the speed of sound downward."

Also (from your own article):

"In order to learn about the aerodynamics of transonic flight, the
only recourse appeared to be a real airplane that would fly in that
regime."

If you are going to make this claim, please cite the unknown physics of
going to the moon in 1950.

See above. I think your article just did for me.

Dave

 

[Don Lancaster]

"David T. Croft, Ph.D." wrote:

Can anyone provide more details about the above reaction? Is the Na
consumed? What are the other products?

www.AdsorptionProcessModeling.com

"David Harper" <dave.harper@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:364fd697.0407260330.2e80cf5c@posting.google.com...
Dan Bloomquist <EXTRApublic20@lakeweb.com> wrote in message
news:<4103F281.8090806@lakeweb.com>...

Fine, further discussion of hydrogen as a fuel won't get us anywhere.
However, I can't let the following comments slide.

David Harper wrote:
So you're stating that super/hypersonic flight was a "known physics"
in 1950? Maybe you should re-read the above quote:

"The U.S. rocket program hit a wall in the late 1940's due to a lack
of understanding of supersonic physics."

You seem to be hanging your hopes for hydrogen on this journalist's
words.

If you'd read the article, you'd realize he wasn't a journalist, but a
*professor* in physics.

Here is the timeline supersonic science:

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4219/Chapter3.html

Notice that the fine tuning of Mach's work was done in the 30s. Now date
Mach...

This is another outlandish statement. If Mach's work had been "fine
tuned" in the 30's, the following would not have happened (by the way,
this is from the source *YOU* cited):

"The general aeronautics community was suddenly awakened to the
realities of the unknown flight regime in November 1941, when Lockheed
test pilot Ralph Virden could not pull the new, high-performance P-38
out of a high-speed dive, and crashed."

After this incident:
"Indeed, it was time for real airplanes to be used to probe the
mysteries of the unknown transonic gap. It was time for the high-speed
research airplane to become a reality."

(again, from your own source)

Mach did some groundbreaking work, but showing shock waves on a bullet
isn't all the info NASA needed on HYPERsonic flow to go to the moon.

From *YOUR OWN* article:

"John Stack nicely summarized the situation in 1938:

The development of the knowledge of compressible-flow phenomena,
particularly as related to aeronautical applications, has been
attended by considerable difficulty. The complicated nature of the
phenomena has resulted in little theoretical progress, and, in
general, recourse to experiment has been necessary. Until recently the
most important experimental results have been obtained in connection
with the science of ballistics, but this information has been of
little value in aeronautical problems because the range of speeds for
which most ballistic experiments have been made extends from the speed
of sound upward; whereas the important region in aeronautics at the
present time extends from the speed of sound downward."

Also (from your own article):

"In order to learn about the aerodynamics of transonic flight, the
only recourse appeared to be a real airplane that would fly in that
regime."

If you are going to make this claim, please cite the unknown physics of
going to the moon in 1950.

See above. I think your article just did for me.

Dave

Doing anything with concentrated hydrogen peroxide is fundamentally
insane.

Even the X-prize candidates are not allowed to use it.


--
Many thanks,

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

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

 

[David Harper]

Don Lancaster <don@tinaja.com> wrote in message news:<4160809D.FA53736D@tinaja.com>...

Doing anything with concentrated hydrogen peroxide is fundamentally
insane.

Even the X-prize candidates are not allowed to use it.

I'm not sure that statement is accurate.

http://www.xprize.org/teams/rules_and_guidelines.php

Armadillo Aerospace is a contender (soon not to be by tomorrow, if SS1
does well), and they use H2O2 propulsion.

Concentrated H2O2 is not child's play, but then again, neither is
ammonium perchlorate, H2, or nitrous oxide,

Dave

 

[Don Lancaster]

David Harper wrote:

Don Lancaster <don@tinaja.com> wrote in message news:<4160809D.FA53736D@tinaja.com>...

Doing anything with concentrated hydrogen peroxide is fundamentally
insane.

Even the X-prize candidates are not allowed to use it.

I'm not sure that statement is accurate.

http://www.xprize.org/teams/rules_and_guidelines.php

Armadillo Aerospace is a contender (soon not to be by tomorrow, if SS1
does well), and they use H2O2 propulsion.

Concentrated H2O2 is not child's play, but then again, neither is
ammonium perchlorate, H2, or nitrous oxide,

Dave

Last I heard, no supplier was willing to sell hydrogen peroxide to
X-prize candidates because of the liability.

--
Many thanks,

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

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

 

[Fred B. McGalliard]

"Don Lancaster" <don@tinaja.com> wrote in message
news:4160D930.C6F500FB@tinaja.com...
....

Last I heard, no supplier was willing to sell hydrogen peroxide to
X-prize candidates because of the liability.

Don't be absurd. H2O2 is just too way low an energy to mass ratio to be any
good except for some odd tasks like small positioning rockets where a lot of
short pulses may be needed (and you don't want to use something really nasty
like hydrazine), or like the steam rocket belt where you really don't want a
high energy fuel and a very hot flame. The stuff is a lot easier to handle
than LOX and LH2.

 

[Rich]

"Ken G." <goodguyy@webtv.net> wrote in

I work on alot of new DVD players ( store returns ) of all kinds and
maybe 1% work after a lens cleaning .

Having so many on hand i try switching lazor assemblies and that
normaly
fixes the problem .. other times its the driver board

Sounds like contacts on the laser assy plug get some film on them.
Switching them around just rubs off the oxide.

I have never removed the laser assy (not a tech), but don't you have
to align them in any way? I'd be tempted to just pull it out and put
it back in, if that's possible. I'm the OP in this thread.

Regards,

Rich

 

[Gareth Tuckwell]

"Gareth Tuckwell" <ContactGT@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:CIRad.1904$4y4.1098@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...

"Franklin" <no_thanks@mail.com> wrote in message
news:958099B49C7BC71F3M4@130.133.1.4...
What rating PSU should I use on a system which has an Athlon 2400+
with a modest graphics card (old GeForce2 MX 32MB) and 768 MB of SD-
RAM. Unusually, it will have *SIX* IDE internal hard drives.

All the rest of the system is pretty normal with no overclocking on
the cpu.

Would a decent 350W PSU be enough? I am thinking of this Nexus PSU.
http://www.nexustek.nl/nx3500.htm The specification chart shows
current delivery at min load, normal load, max load:

I can't comment on the power requirements, but I can say the power supply
I have is excellent. Its the Nexus NX 3000 (300W)and it really is quiet!
If I stop the other 2 fans in the system, I can only just hear it in a
quiet room! This power supply has a normal sized (80mm or 92mm?) fan and
it is quiet, so the big 120mm fan should be practically silent.

As for voltage regulation. I can't say if it is good or not (anyone
comment?), but I get the following readouts in my hardware monitor:
3.3v actually reads 3.312 or 3.328
5v actually reads 4.945
12v actually reads 12.096
-12v actually reads -12.196
-5v actually reads -5.005
5vsb actually reads 5.072 (don't know what vsb is!)

I should add that my NX 3000 (300w) power used to run this system without
any problems:
Athlon 2400+ (normal voltage and clocking)
2GB (3 modules) SDRAM
3 IDE hard disk drives
1 IDE DVD drive
1 SCSI cd writer
Radeon 8500 AGP card
1 wireless PCI
1 network PCI
1 sound card PCI
9 fans!! (of various sizes)

 

[kony]

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 15:06:35 +0100, Franklin
<no_thanks@mail.com> wrote:

What rating PSU should I use on a system which has an Athlon 2400+
with a modest graphics card (old GeForce2 MX 32MB) and 768 MB of SD-
RAM. Unusually, it will have *SIX* IDE internal hard drives.

All the rest of the system is pretty normal with no overclocking on
the cpu.

Would a decent 350W PSU be enough? I am thinking of this Nexus PSU.
http://www.nexustek.nl/nx3500.htm The specification chart shows
current delivery at min load, normal load, max load:

+3.3V 0.3A 14.0A 21.2/28A
+5V 1.0A 12.7A 30/25.5A
+12V 0.2A 4.5A 16A

(1) +3.3V & +5V total output not exceed 220Watt.
(1a) When +3.3V is loaded to 28A, then the +5V maximum load is 25.5A.
(1b) When +3.3V is loaded to 21.2A, the +5V maximum load is 30A.
(2) +3.3V & +5V & +12V total output not exceed 330Watt.

---

Is this any good for my needs?

Nexus relabels Sparkle PSU. If you can find a Sparkle (or
Fortron) 350W for lower price it would be better value.

350W is enough for your system but if motherboard uses 12V
for CPU (one sign of that would be that the board uses the
"Intel" P4 4-pin 12V connector in addition to the ATX 20 pin
connector) then it would provide more margin to choose 400W
or higher (Nexus/Sparkle/Fortron will still be a good choice
in 400W or higher).

 

[VWWall]

Franklin wrote:

What rating PSU should I use on a system which has an Athlon 2400+
with a modest graphics card (old GeForce2 MX 32MB) and 768 MB of SD-
RAM. Unusually, it will have *SIX* IDE internal hard drives.

All the rest of the system is pretty normal with no overclocking on
the cpu.

Would a decent 350W PSU be enough? I am thinking of this Nexus PSU.
http://www.nexustek.nl/nx3500.htm The specification chart shows
current delivery at min load, normal load, max load:

+3.3V 0.3A 14.0A 21.2/28A
+5V 1.0A 12.7A 30/25.5A
+12V 0.2A 4.5A 16A

(1) +3.3V & +5V total output not exceed 220Watt.
(1a) When +3.3V is loaded to 28A, then the +5V maximum load is 25.5A.
(1b) When +3.3V is loaded to 21.2A, the +5V maximum load is 30A.
(2) +3.3V & +5V & +12V total output not exceed 330Watt.

---

Is this any good for my needs?

The six hard drives will draw about 2 A each on startup. When running
this will drop considerably. You could monitor the +12V rail during
startup, but a normal voltmeter will not respond rapidly enough. A
digital voltmeter needs about a second to compare the voltage under test
to its internal standard and produce a reading. The 16 A rating should
be ample, if it's a true rating and you don't add other things requiring
+12 V.

If it boots OK, and everything works, the supply should be fine.

Virg Wall
--
A foolish consistency is the
hobgoblin of little minds,........
Ralph Waldo Emerson
(Microsoft programmer's manual.)

 

[Don Burnette]

Franklin wrote:

What rating PSU should I use on a system which has an Athlon 2400+
with a modest graphics card (old GeForce2 MX 32MB) and 768 MB of SD-
RAM. Unusually, it will have *SIX* IDE internal hard drives.

All the rest of the system is pretty normal with no overclocking on
the cpu.

Would a decent 350W PSU be enough? I am thinking of this Nexus PSU.
http://www.nexustek.nl/nx3500.htm The specification chart shows
current delivery at min load, normal load, max load:

+3.3V 0.3A 14.0A 21.2/28A
+5V 1.0A 12.7A 30/25.5A
+12V 0.2A 4.5A 16A

(1) +3.3V & +5V total output not exceed 220Watt.
(1a) When +3.3V is loaded to 28A, then the +5V maximum load is 25.5A.
(1b) When +3.3V is loaded to 21.2A, the +5V maximum load is 30A.
(2) +3.3V & +5V & +12V total output not exceed 330Watt.

---

Is this any good for my needs?

You really can't have too much, but you can have too little.

When it comes to power supplies, I would just get a good name - like Antec
True Power, around 430 watt to be safe.




--
Don Burnette

 

[larrymoencurly]

"Franklin" <no_thanks@mail.com> wrote in message
news:958099B49C7BC71F3M4@130.133.1.4...

What rating PSU should I use on a system which has an Athlon 2400+
with a modest graphics card (old GeForce2 MX 32MB) and 768 MB of SD-
RAM. Unusually, it will have *SIX* IDE internal hard drives.

All the rest of the system is pretty normal with no overclocking on
the cpu.

Would a decent 350W PSU be enough? I am thinking of this Nexus PSU.
http://www.nexustek.nl/nx3500.htm

Nexus is made by Fortron-Source, one of the best PSU makers in the
world, but I don't know if the 16A @ +12V is enough for all that
hardware. One person found that his XP1800+ system with five HDs
(RPM unknown) and a couple of CD drives consumed only 160W from the AC
lines, meaning that the computer was taking about 120W. And in 2002
C'T magazine measured several computers equipped with XP2400+ CPUs,
256M DDR, and GeForce3/Ti500 graphics cards and found that it took
about 9A @ +12V, 2-4A @ +5V, and 9-12A @ +3.3V.

 

[Al Smith]

Would a decent 350W PSU be enough? I am thinking of this Nexus PSU.
http://www.nexustek.nl/nx3500.htm The specification chart shows
current delivery at min load, normal load, max load:

+3.3V 0.3A 14.0A 21.2/28A
+5V 1.0A 12.7A 30/25.5A
+12V 0.2A 4.5A 16A

(1) +3.3V & +5V total output not exceed 220Watt.
(1a) When +3.3V is loaded to 28A, then the +5V maximum load is 25.5A.
(1b) When +3.3V is loaded to 21.2A, the +5V maximum load is 30A.
(2) +3.3V & +5V & +12V total output not exceed 330Watt.

---

Is this any good for my needs?


With 6 drives I'd go with a larger power supply, get at least a 450W
supply or even larger. An Antec 550W supply is only $108. You don't want
to waste your time hunting down system glitches because you saved 30 bucks
on a power supply.

You don't want to waste $30 for nothing, either.

 

[Matt]

Franklin wrote:

What rating PSU should I use on a system which has an Athlon 2400+
with a modest graphics card (old GeForce2 MX 32MB) and 768 MB of SD-
RAM. Unusually, it will have *SIX* IDE internal hard drives.

All the rest of the system is pretty normal with no overclocking on
the cpu.

Would a decent 350W PSU be enough? I am thinking of this Nexus PSU.
http://www.nexustek.nl/nx3500.htm The specification chart shows
current delivery at min load, normal load, max load:

+3.3V 0.3A 14.0A 21.2/28A
+5V 1.0A 12.7A 30/25.5A
+12V 0.2A 4.5A 16A

(1) +3.3V & +5V total output not exceed 220Watt.
(1a) When +3.3V is loaded to 28A, then the +5V maximum load is 25.5A.
(1b) When +3.3V is loaded to 21.2A, the +5V maximum load is 30A.
(2) +3.3V & +5V & +12V total output not exceed 330Watt.

---

Is this any good for my needs?

You have already done about half the work. Now hunt down the specs for
your disk drives, and do the addition problems. See also something like:
http://www.jscustompcs.com/power_supply/

See the AMD builders' guide, page 7, at:

http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/SellAMDProducts/0,,30_177_4458_3505%5E869%5E4348%5E1065,00.html

You might also need to know that DC Power = (DC voltage) x (DC current).
Current is the same as amperage.
Eg 12V x 2.5A = 30 Watts.

 

[DaveW]

Hmmm ... I think you should more seriously be thinking about an Antec 550
Watt True Power supply.

--
DaveW



"Franklin" <no_thanks@mail.com> wrote in message
news:958099B49C7BC71F3M4@130.133.1.4...

What rating PSU should I use on a system which has an Athlon 2400+
with a modest graphics card (old GeForce2 MX 32MB) and 768 MB of SD-
RAM. Unusually, it will have *SIX* IDE internal hard drives.

All the rest of the system is pretty normal with no overclocking on
the cpu.

Would a decent 350W PSU be enough? I am thinking of this Nexus PSU.
http://www.nexustek.nl/nx3500.htm The specification chart shows
current delivery at min load, normal load, max load:

+3.3V 0.3A 14.0A 21.2/28A
+5V 1.0A 12.7A 30/25.5A
+12V 0.2A 4.5A 16A

(1) +3.3V & +5V total output not exceed 220Watt.
(1a) When +3.3V is loaded to 28A, then the +5V maximum load is 25.5A.
(1b) When +3.3V is loaded to 21.2A, the +5V maximum load is 30A.
(2) +3.3V & +5V & +12V total output not exceed 330Watt.

---

Is this any good for my needs?

 

[Watson A.Name - \"Watt Su]

"Don Burnette" <d.burnette@clothes.comcast.net> wrote in message
newsOCdnSqUMKM3kfHcRVn-gw@giganews.com...

Franklin wrote:
What rating PSU should I use on a system which has an Athlon 2400+
with a modest graphics card (old GeForce2 MX 32MB) and 768 MB of SD-
RAM. Unusually, it will have *SIX* IDE internal hard drives.

All the rest of the system is pretty normal with no overclocking on
the cpu.

Would a decent 350W PSU be enough? I am thinking of this Nexus PSU.
http://www.nexustek.nl/nx3500.htm The specification chart shows
current delivery at min load, normal load, max load:

+3.3V 0.3A 14.0A 21.2/28A
+5V 1.0A 12.7A 30/25.5A
+12V 0.2A 4.5A 16A

(1) +3.3V & +5V total output not exceed 220Watt.
(1a) When +3.3V is loaded to 28A, then the +5V maximum load is
25.5A.
(1b) When +3.3V is loaded to 21.2A, the +5V maximum load is 30A.
(2) +3.3V & +5V & +12V total output not exceed 330Watt.

---

Is this any good for my needs?

You really can't have too much, but you can have too little.

What kind of twisted logic made you come up with that statement?
Why don't you say what you _really_ mean?
"You really should buy a PSU that has too much, rather than too little
power."

When it comes to power supplies, I would just get a good name - like
Antec
True Power, around 430 watt to be safe.

--
Don Burnette

 

[kony]

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 09:22:57 -0400, General Schvantzkoph
<schvantzkoph@yahoo.com> wrote:

It's true that an insufficient power supply can cause both
instability and eventual damage, but the typical Athlon
system does not need 400W, and there is almost no "PC"
system that needs 500W, even if the vast majority of the
current were concentrated on only the 5V or 12V rail.

With a typical PC, that being current-gen CPU, a couple hard
drives, budget/low-end video card, etc, 300W PSU in a good
name brand is sufficient. SFF systems demonstrate every day
that even a 180-250W PSU will run a modern built with enough
margin for another hard drive or two... but the PSU may need
replaced sooner.

Generics on the other hand, are a lottery. Their wattage
rating means almost nothing, they can only be assumed to be
somewhere inbetween 200W and 400W without further evidence.

The OP seems to be talking about a file server not a desktop PC. It's
hard to imagine why you would need 6 drives on a desktop. The disks are
going to be working much harder in a file server then they would be in a
PC. The symptom of a power supply problem on a file server is that a disk
suddenly drops off line, they system continues to run but you've lost that
drive until you do a reboot. It's very annoying. It's much better to spend
a few more dollars to get a robust supply. There will be $1000 worth of
drives in that system, it's silly to worry about 30 or 40 bucks extra for
a 550W supply vs a 350W.

Possibly a file server but then why the Athlon XP2400?
Seems a bit overpowered if the goal is to minimize power
usage, or rather, buy an economical PSU for the role played.

Even so you may be right, _IF_ the drives, data, or
function, productivity loss is significant from a failure
then it's easily justifiable to budget more for larger
wattage PSU.

 

[VWWall]

Matt wrote:

none wrote:

With that many Hd's I'd be thinking about dedicating one good psu to
the motherboard and the optical drives/floppy and using separate
supplies for alll those Hd's.(maybe 2 drives to a psu rated at at
least 350-400 watts.)

That way, he would have about 250-300 watts left over on each!

That way he could avoid about a half hour's mental work.

Except he would have to figure how to rig a computer using four power
supplies instead of one.

Or he could put a 12V automobile storage battery and charger under the
desk and hook all the drive's 12V input to that! ;-) That way if he had
a power failure, the drives would keep spinning and upon power return,
he wouldn't have to let them warm up as another poster suggested. :-(

Seriously, once the drives are spun up, they require only ~1 A each.
Fans have even less requirements: < 1/2 A each.

Some motherboards and video cards use considerable 12V power, but this
is not the case here.

Having more real real available than is required does nothing for
stability or anything else!

Virg Wall
--
A foolish consistency is the
hobgoblin of little minds,........
Ralph Waldo Emerson
(Microsoft programmer's manual.)