Toshiba TV29C90 problem; Image fades to black...

[James Sweet]

"NSM" <nowrite@to.me> wrote in message
news:vvoBd.37065$Y72.33695@edtnps91...

"James Sweet" <jamessweet@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ndoBd.17924$2X6.8181@trnddc07...
|
| "NSM" <nowrite@to.me> wrote in message
| news:m5kBd.36146$KO5.31491@clgrps13...
|
| > "Tom MacIntyre" <tom__macintyre@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| > news4ibt01alb15i30bfujqtlut215ub6demi@4ax.com...
|
| > | Most viruses are coded for MS, because MS is the most prolific of
the
| > | operating systems. Why bother coding a virus to attack 1%, 5%, ?% of
| > | the PC world?
|
| > And MS software catches and spreads viruses like a pre-school class.
It
| was
| > never designed from the ground up with any sort of security.
|
| > N
|
|
|
| NT was, people just tend not to configure it to be secure, most log in
as
| administrator, most also set it to auto login, lots of people install
| software infested with spyware and viruses, the most secure OS's
available
| are insecure in the hands of a typical home user.

Wasn't NT based (somewhat) on Unix? What I like most is all the people who
install wireless networks then don't secure them!!

In very loose terms, yes, but realistically it has very little directly in
common. One fault NT/2K/XP does have is that it's default configuration is
not particularly secure, but lock it down out of the box and the average
home user accustomed to 9x will be confused by the added complexity.

So true on the wireless thing, a few months ago I took my laptop along in a
car ride just for kicks, I found an unsecured wireless network every mile or
so going past suburbs and apartment complexes.

 

[James Sweet]

Most viruses are coded for MS, because MS is the most prolific of the

Prolific?? Like, M$ is, well.. Nahh. Not prolific.

They have 95% of the market, if that's not prolific, what is?

operating systems. Why bother coding a virus to attack 1%, 5%, ?% of
the PC world?

Why? Well, there *are* Linux viruses, if you didn't know.. Duh.
A Google search for Linux virus gives over 13 million hits! Duh!
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Linux+virus&btnG=Google+Search

Of course there *are* linux viruses, there's viruses for just about any OS
there is, but the vast majority of viruses are coded for Windows, followed
by those for MacOS, it's no coincidence that these are the two most commonly
used consumer OS's, everything else combined is just a tiny sliver of the
pie.

 

[Active8]

On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 17:17:51 GMT, GEO wrote:

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 14:53:35 -0500, Active8 <reply2group@ndbbm.net
wrote:

What kind? I clicked it yesterday and saw an unshaven Santa with a
gun.

I guess a shaven Santa would be more scary for most ;-)

Other than that, I have not noticed anything strange yet.

You just wait *muhahaha*. ;oP

In any case all those virus warnings create more noise than they help!
People should just keep their anti-virus and windows updated - and don't
do obvious stupid stuff ;-)

Clicking a valid url is not that bad, is it? I have no virus checker, never
had. I install the MS patches when I am advised to do so, and that's it.

Those patches won't stop a downloaded malware program you run. That
URL is unavailable now, but I run Antivir and I detected nothing bad
when I visited that link.

See:
http://securityresponse.symantec.com/avcenter/venc/data/bloodhound.exploit.21.html

What does this have to do with downloading a program that you think

is safe but isn't? Patches don't catch that. Bloodhound is an old
Norton scanner and they're talking about an MSIE exploit which is
not the same as downloading a malicious program.

--
Best Regards,
Mike

 

On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 17:47:30 -0500, Active8 <reply2group@ndbbm.net>
wrote:

What kind? I clicked it yesterday and saw an unshaven Santa with a
gun.

Other than that, I have not noticed anything strange yet.

Clicking a valid url is not that bad, is it? I have no virus checker, never
had. I install the MS patches when I am advised to do so, and that's it.

That URL is unavailable now, but I run Antivir and I detected nothing bad
when I visited that link.

See:
http://securityresponse.symantec.com/avcenter/venc/data/bloodhound.exploit.21.html

What does this have to do with downloading a program that you think
is safe but isn't? Patches don't catch that. Bloodhound is an old
Norton scanner and they're talking about an MSIE exploit which is
not the same as downloading a malicious program.

That was the exploit hidden in the page that started this thread (as
reported in al.comp.virus). Your comment was ' I run Antivir and I
detected nothing bad when I visited that link.', so I added what had
been reported to be in that page.

'Bloodhound.Exploit.21 is a heuristic detection for files that have
been designed to exploit the Microsoft Internet Explorer HTML Help
Control Local Zone Security Restriction Bypass Vulnerability (BID
11467). The vulnerability is still unpatched by Microsoft as of
December 25, 2004.'

Geo

 

[Active8]

On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 00:35:07 GMT, GEO wrote:

On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 17:47:30 -0500, Active8 <reply2group@ndbbm.net
wrote:

What kind? I clicked it yesterday and saw an unshaven Santa with a
gun.

Other than that, I have not noticed anything strange yet.

Clicking a valid url is not that bad, is it? I have no virus checker, never
had. I install the MS patches when I am advised to do so, and that's it.

That URL is unavailable now, but I run Antivir and I detected nothing bad
when I visited that link.

See:
http://securityresponse.symantec.com/avcenter/venc/data/bloodhound.exploit.21.html

What does this have to do with downloading a program that you think
is safe but isn't? Patches don't catch that. Bloodhound is an old
Norton scanner and they're talking about an MSIE exploit which is
not the same as downloading a malicious program.

That was the exploit hidden in the page that started this thread (as
reported in al.comp.virus). Your comment was ' I run Antivir and I
detected nothing bad when I visited that link.', so I added what had
been reported to be in that page.

Ok. I don't run IE but I suppose updating AntiVir more often
wouldn't hurt.

'Bloodhound.Exploit.21

<snip>
I'd read all that. Bloodhound is a scanner that goes back to the
days of Peter Norton. Semantec must really like the word and
probably groups certain exploits in that class. It detected my boot
sector program I wrote friggin' 10 yrs ago - Bloodhound TM.

--
Best Regards,
Mike

 

[keith]

On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 22:26:59 +0000, James Sweet wrote:

"NSM" <nowrite@to.me> wrote in message
news:vvoBd.37065$Y72.33695@edtnps91...

"James Sweet" <jamessweet@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ndoBd.17924$2X6.8181@trnddc07...
|
| "NSM" <nowrite@to.me> wrote in message
| news:m5kBd.36146$KO5.31491@clgrps13...
|
| > "Tom MacIntyre" <tom__macintyre@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| > news4ibt01alb15i30bfujqtlut215ub6demi@4ax.com...
|
| > | Most viruses are coded for MS, because MS is the most prolific of
the
| > | operating systems. Why bother coding a virus to attack 1%, 5%, ?% of
| > | the PC world?
|
| > And MS software catches and spreads viruses like a pre-school class.
It
| was
| > never designed from the ground up with any sort of security.
|
| > N
|
|
|
| NT was, people just tend not to configure it to be secure, most log in
as
| administrator, most also set it to auto login, lots of people install
| software infested with spyware and viruses, the most secure OS's
available
| are insecure in the hands of a typical home user.

Wasn't NT based (somewhat) on Unix? What I like most is all the people who
install wireless networks then don't secure them!!


In very loose terms, yes, but realistically it has very little directly in
common. One fault NT/2K/XP does have is that it's default configuration is
not particularly secure, but lock it down out of the box and the average
home user accustomed to 9x will be confused by the added complexity.

No, it was based on VMS and OS/2. It was supposed to be OS/2 version 3,
but M$ hired David Cutler from DEC with the promise that he'd do a VMS
knock-off. It fell *way* short of either. NT had nothing to do with *IX,
in any way, shape, or form.

So true on the wireless thing, a few months ago I took my laptop along
in a car ride just for kicks, I found an unsecured wireless network
every mile or so going past suburbs and apartment complexes.

Not surprising. I decided to not go wireless at home because I didn't
want another door to have to lock. I opened up the walls and ran CAT5
where I needed instead.

--
Keith

 

On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 19:49:28 -0500, Active8 <reply2group@ndbbm.net>
wrote:

Ok. I don't run IE but I suppose updating AntiVir more often
wouldn't hurt.

No newer versions of any AV for my Win3.1 <G>
Any virus or worm comes so slow in my dialup conecction that I can
have a coffee while I wait.

'Bloodhound.Exploit.21
snip
I'd read all that. Bloodhound is a scanner that goes back to the
days of Peter Norton. Semantec must really like the word and
probably groups certain exploits in that class. It detected my boot
sector program I wrote friggin' 10 yrs ago - Bloodhound TM.

Yes, I remember reading someone mentioning the long history of the
name in alt.comp.virus. Not a bad name, I guess. Better than
'chihuahua'. <g>

Geo

 

[John Perry]

Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, the Dark Remover" wrote:

Why? Well, there *are* Linux viruses, if you didn't know.. Duh.
A Google search for Linux virus gives over 13 million hits! Duh!
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Linux+virus&btnG=Google+Search

Isn't it funny how those Microsoft ideologs keep posting this nonsense!

Take the trouble to read a few of these URL's. You'll find that almost all
refer to security labs working to identify and close security holes, and
educational sites describing how to protect yourself from the vanishingly
few that have actually done harm.

Contrast that with a similar Google on "Windows virus", where almost all are
third-party vendors anouncing and trying to figure out how to defeat the
latest monster virus that's crashing corporate data systems everywhere.

Maybe you should have this: (click on Linux on the left)
http://www.centralcommand.com/index.html

Good advice, if you've got nothing better to do with $350.


--
j point e point perry at
cox point net

 

[Jchick]

Steve, did you discover the bad part? I have the exact same monitor and
it is doing the same thing. It would be helpful is someone located the
bad capacitors as I suspect they go bad eventually on these models.

Thanks

Jim C.


Steve Smith wrote:

Steve Smith wrote:
After having this problem for about a year, the problem went away
as
quickly
as started.

Actually I've now confirmed that the problem did not go away. For
some
reason the monitor has started going into Standy mode instead of
turning
off. It will resume from Standby mode quickly, but if I turn it off
it still
takes several minutes to come one. Perhaps I'll just use Standby
instead of
turning it off. Does anyone know how much power a 19" monitor
consumes in
Standby mode?

Steve Smith

 

[Blanca]

http://www.explorerforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=68838&page=4&pp=20

I just fixed a Ford radio using these instructions. Since I was unable
to locate any pictures I took some myself and posted them...

http://mysite.verizon.net/res046jx/
Billy Menasco
billy.menasco -at- gmail -dot- com

 

[Ken Long]

I just wanted to say thank you for this bit of advice. I did what you
suggested and the Sansui has been working reliably since.

Thanks!

Ken

"Pedro English" <NOSPAMpedroenglish@hotmail.com> wrote:

Dry solder joints esp where the output devices connect to the circuit board.
Resolder these and any sus joints.

"Ken Long" <kenl@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:dk228vk09baui2jr32fn4rv3l59s6994tj@4ax.com...
I have one of these that has started to cut out on an
intermittant basis. When the problem shows up, I first hear a
sound like a relay tripping then the speakers cut out then within
one or two seconds the speakers cut back in with a scratchy
thump. It will do this several times in a row sometimes stopping
on its own, sometimes stopping after I work the source selector
switch a few times. Sometimes it won't stop and I have to turn
the unit off for a couple of hours. The problem usually shows up
after I've moved the receiver for whatever reason, like hooking
up a different source or to clean under it.

Any thoughts?

(I also need to find a service manual for it.)

Ken Long
Albuquerque, NM - USA

 

Bee wrote:

Reverend_roger wrote:
Dennis wrote:
SteveH wrote:
Neaco wrote:
...You get what you pay for...
...the old 'get what you pay for' clause will surely be
applied?
ie. a Ł200 widescreen could reasonably be expected to expire
after a couple of years, whereas a Ł800 set should be expected
to last longer....
...There is little correlation between how long stuff lasts and
the
price. You pay for the brand name on most expensive things...
the components are the same....
I take it you have no experience of tv repair, otherwise you would
not make nonsensical statements like that. So , by your reasoning,
a 1200 pound set has the same longevity as a sub-200 pound
supermarket special? Care to show any examples to support that
assertion?? Whilst it is true that at component level, there
exists
some overlap, circuit design and how those components are used,
is more important, and is another matter ...cheapo no-name sets
are NOT "the same" as most other name brand sets, except on
occasion in , say, some 14" models (JVC used some ONWA
chassis in their 14" low end models, for example).


You are making the assertion that the models from established names
performs
better (and lasts longer) than the no-name or little-known named ones

because of circuit designs, i.e. of different use/configuration of
(some)
components.

That is generally true, yes. Price also influences -you tend to get
what you pay for. Fewer corners seem to be cut in the more expensive
brand-name sets and they as such tend to perform better. Not always,
but in the majority of cases I have seen working in repair.

A better design demands a premium, which may be Ł1000 more.
You implied that a circuit design is an intellectual property, and, a

superior intellect demands a premium. This is the essence of your
contention, reverend_roger.

I think you have read this into my words, nowhere did I mention
intellectual property. read on...

Why is it that a small unknown company (in one country) is unable to
design
a circuit superior than one from an established company (may be of
another
country with a different salary pay structure)?

There is absolutely, undeniably, positively, irrefutably no reason at
all.
It's bunkum.

The answer is quite simple- Economics and cost cutting. Put simply,
many of those low end sets seem to be built down to a price not up to a
standard. Of course, good design is not exclusive to anybody, but you
just won't normally find that in low end sets since it is not an
important factor in their manufacturing. They could include design
refinements (for example in the areas mentioned in next paragraph) if
they wanted to i am sure, but when you are making a product to market
at lowest possible cost, that doesn't generally happčn.

I find that in many such sets, corners (and hence costs) seem to be
cut most in the audio, power supply/regulation and scanning circuits.

Reverend_roger, you have been unable to think freely, unable to break
free
from the traditional, 'conventional wisdom' that "better design
therefore
more expensive", or maybe, you are an exceptional member of the
unthinking
masses befuddled by big names.

Thank you, that's the nicest thing anybody's said to me all day!

This is of course nonsense: an intelligent
circuit design does not cost money.

Making a proprietary design, researching , testing, refining it,
however, costs money (and takes time). Insetad of that, many low end
sets simply use one turkish or chinese chassis design and slap on a
name. Or maybe you think names like BlueSky, durabrand, technosound,
sogo, SEG etc. make their own designs? how little you know....OEM -ing
is probably far cheaper than designing one from scratch.

-Ben

 

[Bee]

Make up your mind. You have now shifted from poor design to inferior
manufacturing standards. "Cut corners" is what you are now singing.

Every manufacturer befitted to survive in the intensely competitive world of
electronic goods will scour the earth to find the lowest price for a
component. Solid state components last forever. Transformers and
condensers (nowadays also solid state) change parameters over time (minimal
in solid state components) initially but remain stable thereafter.
Mechanical components like switches (worn out through abrasion) may
conceivably be the Achilles heels of the electronic equipment. The error or
deviation from the Mean Time Before Failure of these is so large that it is
a pot luck to pick one consignment of components than another that this
measurement is meaningless, and hugely overrated. These considerations
apply to all whether big name or no name manufacturer. All are in the same
boat. Cutting corner in the selection of components is meaningless.

Television is a mature product. The design is standard. Any refinement, if
indeed desired (different manufacturer have different perception) by the
consumers, will be implemented as a priority. The alterations virtually
cost nothing. When one implementation is warmly received by the public,
every other manufacturers follow suit. Unlike computer software, there is
no secret proprietary circuit design (there are too many equally good ways
to accomplish the same task). Research? Whatever the new fashion of
outward cosmetic is, yes; otherwise, no. A flatter screen, a shorter tube,
a more brilliant phosphorus... or whatever else (I'm referring to a radical
change of direction here) have all been done and finished with. The money
is now on solid state panels.

TV sets are graded by functionality not by how big the name at the front is.
All sets of the same grade perform almost indistinguishably, the basic
parameters being the same. Even picture quality, though looks different
from different sets (only when placed side by side), is designed in by the
manufacturer whose view may differ from yours or from other manufacturers.

Cutting corners is a vague vernacular. The off hand treatment of Turkish or
Chinese chassis exposed your prejudice, not evidence in support of your
argument. Why has JVC taken an unknown manufacturer for the innards of its
14" model?

All electronic equipment nowadays are remarkably reliable and should last
forever (the critical components being minerals in sand) save a replacement
of mechanical parts. If the equipment works without fault in the first
couple of months, if not in the first hour, then there should not be any
problem from then on. Well....until the time comes when an 'upgrade' is too
tempting to be ignored.


Bee
--
[I have found my Shangri-La in ntlworld.]


<reverend_rogers@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1105790642.691798.291980@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

Bee wrote:

Reverend_roger wrote:
Dennis wrote:
SteveH wrote:
Neaco wrote:
...You get what you pay for...
...the old 'get what you pay for' clause will surely be
applied?
ie. a Ł200 widescreen could reasonably be expected to expire
after a couple of years, whereas a Ł800 set should be expected
to last longer....
...There is little correlation between how long stuff lasts and
the
price. You pay for the brand name on most expensive things...
the components are the same....
I take it you have no experience of tv repair, otherwise you would
not make nonsensical statements like that. So , by your reasoning,
a 1200 pound set has the same longevity as a sub-200 pound
supermarket special? Care to show any examples to support that
assertion?? Whilst it is true that at component level, there
exists
some overlap, circuit design and how those components are used,
is more important, and is another matter ...cheapo no-name sets
are NOT "the same" as most other name brand sets, except on
occasion in , say, some 14" models (JVC used some ONWA
chassis in their 14" low end models, for example).


You are making the assertion that the models from established names
performs
better (and lasts longer) than the no-name or little-known named ones

because of circuit designs, i.e. of different use/configuration of
(some)
components.

That is generally true, yes. Price also influences -you tend to get
what you pay for. Fewer corners seem to be cut in the more expensive
brand-name sets and they as such tend to perform better. Not always,
but in the majority of cases I have seen working in repair.

A better design demands a premium, which may be Ł1000 more.
You implied that a circuit design is an intellectual property, and, a

superior intellect demands a premium. This is the essence of your
contention, reverend_roger.

I think you have read this into my words, nowhere did I mention
intellectual property. read on...

Why is it that a small unknown company (in one country) is unable to
design
a circuit superior than one from an established company (may be of
another
country with a different salary pay structure)?

There is absolutely, undeniably, positively, irrefutably no reason at
all.
It's bunkum.

The answer is quite simple- Economics and cost cutting. Put simply,
many of those low end sets seem to be built down to a price not up to a
standard. Of course, good design is not exclusive to anybody, but you
just won't normally find that in low end sets since it is not an
important factor in their manufacturing. They could include design
refinements (for example in the areas mentioned in next paragraph) if
they wanted to i am sure, but when you are making a product to market
at lowest possible cost, that doesn't generally happčn.

I find that in many such sets, corners (and hence costs) seem to be
cut most in the audio, power supply/regulation and scanning circuits.

Reverend_roger, you have been unable to think freely, unable to break
free
from the traditional, 'conventional wisdom' that "better design
therefore
more expensive", or maybe, you are an exceptional member of the
unthinking
masses befuddled by big names.

Thank you, that's the nicest thing anybody's said to me all day!

This is of course nonsense: an intelligent
circuit design does not cost money.

Making a proprietary design, researching , testing, refining it,
however, costs money (and takes time). Insetad of that, many low end
sets simply use one turkish or chinese chassis design and slap on a
name. Or maybe you think names like BlueSky, durabrand, technosound,
sogo, SEG etc. make their own designs? how little you know....OEM -ing
is probably far cheaper than designing one from scratch.

-Ben

 

[Bee]

You have just illuminated my point! Philips had a poorly design chassis
some time ago. JVC is promoting itself but using a model from a little
known manufacturer. Big names do not guarantee quality or differ little
from the small guys. Consumers are doped and are willing to pay over the
odds for the big names.

Good point. You mentioned the leakage of electrolytic condensers due to poor
design. Now we are back to the quality of circuit design. I hope you agree
with me, as reverend_roger has, that good circuit design has no exclusivity.
The example you cited is simply sheer incompetence, sadly it can inflicts
big names as well as small, expensive models as well as cheapos. So, it
follows, and I hope you also agree with me, that these days given a good
design, an inexpensive TV is just as reliable and long lasting as an
expensive model .

Bee
--
[I have found my Shangri-La in ntlworld.]


<maarten@panic.xx.tudelft.nl> wrote in message
news:csbbn3$e0g$1@news.tudelft.nl...

In sci.electronics.repair Bee <in.my.bonnet@shangri-la.com> wrote:
Make up your mind. You have now shifted from poor design to inferior
manufacturing standards. "Cut corners" is what you are now singing.

They go hand-in-hand in most cheap stuff.

component. Solid state components last forever. Transformers and

They don't.

condensers (nowadays also solid state) change parameters over time
(minimal

Nowadays??? Electrolytics still have fluids, and transformers never
changed design in a major way.

in solid state components) initially but remain stable thereafter.

They won't. Electrolytics dry out, faster so in a poorly designed
apparatus. Also cheaper electrolytics will have less tolerance for avuse
or even for use.

apply to all whether big name or no name manufacturer. All are in the
same
boat. Cutting corner in the selection of components is meaningless.

Admittedly, Philips made a mistake buying cheap power switches from
Stelvio that don't last too long and can cause spectacular shorts, but
the really cheap brands do this all the time as well.

Television is a mature product. The design is standard. Any refinement,
if
indeed desired (different manufacturer have different perception) by the
consumers, will be implemented as a priority. The alterations virtually
cost nothing. When one implementation is warmly received by the public,
every other manufacturers follow suit. Unlike computer software, there
is
no secret proprietary circuit design (there are too many equally good
ways
to accomplish the same task). Research? Whatever the new fashion of
outward cosmetic is, yes; otherwise, no. A flatter screen, a shorter
tube,
a more brilliant phosphorus... or whatever else (I'm referring to a
radical
change of direction here) have all been done and finished with. The
money
is now on solid state panels.

I agree with you that there is not too much new development in
traditional TV design, but your lack of understandig the aspects of
different technical designs and implementations of those designs, do
indicate you don't have a relevant electronical background. You should
gain some more experience in the design AND repair business before
judging technical stuff from a consumer point of view. Otherwise you're
better off juding stuff only by the features and price, as most
consumer magazines have traditionally done and still do.

Cutting corners is a vague vernacular. The off hand treatment of Turkish
or
Chinese chassis exposed your prejudice, not evidence in support of your
argument. Why has JVC taken an unknown manufacturer for the innards of
its
14" model?

Because it is cheap. Nowadays it seems every 4:3 JVC TV-set is made by
Vestel of Turkey. They can only afford to manufacture more expensive
models themselves, nowadays. Statistically, Onwa sets have always been
more vulnerable to defects (anyone remember the 2 small caps in
virtually every related design (not only Onwa but also a few more
standard designs that are virtually the same) that always loose capacity
after a few years and cause damage through overvoltage?). I do see
Vestel chassis with various defects as well. A friend bought a 28"
Vestel JVC set, of which the power supply crapped out after only a few
weeks. It was replaced under warrantee, so I have not analysed the
defect, but chances are that costs were cut a bit too much.

All electronic equipment nowadays are remarkably reliable and should last
forever (the critical components being minerals in sand) save a
replacement
of mechanical parts. If the equipment works without fault in the first
couple of months, if not in the first hour, then there should not be any
problem from then on. Well....until the time comes when an 'upgrade' is
too
tempting to be ignored.

This was true for most solid state equipment from the eighties and
nineties, except maybe some really cheap stuff (*). It is not anymore.
Main cause: demand from the public for cheap stuff. You can't expect
premium and long lasting performance for low cost.

(*) Yes, even Philips made a crappy design in the early nineties (G90B
chassis), and this was French, not even Turkish


Met vriendelijke groet,

Maarten Bakker.

 

[Capitol]

maarten@panic.xx.tudelft.nl wrote:
Although large manufacturers are under great

pressure by people who want something but don't want to pay for it, they
still can throw more money and experience at the design, choice of
components and manufacturing.

But in general they don't. They may spend a bit more on life/etc testing
of new designs, but they are much more interested in getting the product
into production and sales ASAP. Before you claim again that I and others
don't understand electronics, I'd point out that I've spent decades in
high volume (>2M/Annum) international electronics design, for some of
the world's majors. The pressure on manufacturers is to produce for
today, not tomorrow. No manufacturer can afford to produce total crap if
he wants the next order. However, the standards will be reduced to the
lowest which the market will bear! Big brands are normally little better
than cheap/no brands in terms of product quality/life for these bottom
end commodity products which are now old/obsolete technology. Spares are
a thing of the past with modern production efficiencies, cost precludes
repair. The production life of a custom TV/Video control microprocessor
is generally less than 12 months. Are you prepared to stock unique
spares for 10 years? If it doesn't work scrap it! In general, when you
buy a, say, Sony TV, you may buy a slightly better picture quality
because of the unique CRT design, but the rest of the semiconductor
electronics is more or less bog standard together with the rest of the
industry and may well be lacking in software originating teletext
features, compared with a cheapo Goodmans! You may also be amazed at the
number of spare components stuck on under the pcb to make it work,
because the design didn't when it hit production! All manufacturers
switch component sources to the cheapest available. The low cost Chinese
manufacturers are now very good in most cases at producing a reliable
product in the TV market. If you look at the number of failures on a
production % basis you will likely find that they are better than most
big brand names which actually have no sales volume! If you are
referring to CD players, then, yes, there is a difference between cheap
units and more expensive units for head life, but this is purely a
temporary phenomena, whilst the quality is improved in order to get the
next order. I don't buy major brand named electronics products in
general, because the selling price is determined by how many suckers can
be parted from their money for a pile of frequently expensively marketed
crap and I view TV styling as something for sheep. I regard Bose as
perhaps the most superb example of marketing over product performance!

I won't start on electrolytics/psus, as this would take all night,
except to say that good psu design is now so standard that a poor psu
is purely a QA failure.

Regards
Capitol

 

Capitol wrote:

maarten@panic.xx.tudelft.nl wrote:
Although large manufacturers are under great
pressure by people who want something but don't want to pay for it,
they
still can throw more money and experience at the design, choice of
components and manufacturing.


But in general they don't. They may spend a bit more on life/etc
testing
of new designs, but they are much more interested in getting the
product
into production and sales ASAP. Before you claim again that I and
others
don't understand electronics, I'd point out that I've spent decades
in
high volume (>2M/Annum) international electronics design, for some of

the world's majors.

design of televisions? electronics design is a wide field you know....

(snip)

Big brands are normally little better
than cheap/no brands in terms of product quality/life for these
bottom
end commodity products which are now old/obsolete technology.

That seems like a very sweeping statement and one I find to be totally
inaccurate with regard to TVs. You get what you pay for. Low price
nearly always means low end.

Spares are
a thing of the past with modern production efficiencies, cost
precludes
repair. The production life of a custom TV/Video control
microprocessor
is generally less than 12 months. Are you prepared to stock unique
spares for 10 years? If it doesn't work scrap it!

ecologically unsustainable and irresponsible consumerist attitude.
Those landfills will come back to haunt us one day in the
not-too-distant future....

In general, when you
buy a, say, Sony TV, you may buy a slightly better picture quality
because of the unique CRT design, but the rest of the semiconductor
electronics is more or less bog standard together with the rest of
the
industry

another imprecise, sweeping statement. Are you referring to componts
used, the circuit design, or both, ? what exactly is "the rest of the
industry"?

and may well be lacking in software originating teletext

features, compared with a cheapo Goodmans! You may also be amazed at
the
number of spare components stuck on under the pcb to make it work,
because the design didn't when it hit production! All manufacturers
switch component sources to the cheapest available. The low cost
Chinese
manufacturers are now very good in most cases at producing a reliable

product in the TV market.

ROFL. utterly wrong - again. Do you seriously believe what you are
coming out with? have you ever stepped into a workshop or opened these
"wonderful" low end sets for repair?

If you look at the number of failures on a

production % basis you will likely find that they are better than
most
big brand names which actually have no sales volume! If you are
referring to CD players, then, yes, there is a difference between
cheap
units and more expensive units for head life, but this is purely a
temporary phenomena, whilst the quality is improved in order to get
the
next order.

So, how do they pull that one off, a "temporary difference phenomenon??

I don't buy major brand named electronics products in

general, because the selling price is determined by how many suckers
can
be parted from their money for a pile of frequently expensively
marketed
crap and I view TV styling as something for sheep. I regard Bose as

perhaps the most superb example of marketing over product
performance!

Televisions were the original subject of this thread. CD and VCRs are
another thing entirely....You are lumping together many aspects of
Audio visual electronics, and as a result, jumping to erroneous
conclusions.

I won't start on electrolytics/psus, as this would take all night,
except to say that good psu design is now so standard that a poor psu
is purely a QA failure.

examples?
-Ben

 

In sci.electronics.repair Bee <in.my.bonnet@shangri-la.com> wrote:

Thanks for the history, but that only revealed the poor quality in design
where the other components could not stand the strain and eventually failed.

I clearly stated in which cases not the design but _only_ the quality of
components was to blame (11AK19), and in which cases both were to blame
(ONWA). In the third case (11AK16) it was indeed just a poor design.

Yes, I do remember reading something like that in the Wireless World. This
must be 20 years ago. Or, was it a Mullard/Ferguson chassis? Anyway, I
have come to the conclusion, actually about the same time, that big names
meant nothing. Poor design is time and again the villain, and provided that
is controlled, as, for example, in TV where the design is now mature, an
electronic equipment from a small company can be as good as, if not better
than, one from a big one. Not accepting this fact is sticking the head into
sand, and giving away good money at the same time.

The fact: equipment from a small company can be as good or better than
that of a large company. I agree 150%. I do not regard budget
manufacturers as Onwa or Vestel as small companies (they aren't), just
as budget ones. Repair history seems to agree with that fact. Of course
name brands have managed various screw-ups as well, but they do not tend
to make that a habit. I appreciate you sharing your background. Some of
the facts I see every day may be hard to judge from your angle, but you
do at least have all the basic knowledge.

Having said this, I do like repairing Onwa TV sets with the mentioned
capacitor trouble. It is a pretty standard repair and actually makes the
set more reliable than it ever was out of the factory. Mounting quality
105 degrees electrolytics in such a manner that they are as far from
heat sources as possible will solve large part of the unreliability
issue. Some other blown components need to be replaced, but nothing
special there most of the time.

Also, something that should not be overlooked: overall quality is going
down in all brands (including the name brands) as far as I can tell.
This is only because of cutting cost. This has been very apparent the
last few years, especially in VCRs since mechanisms are even more prone
to premature faillure. After having cut every possible cost, every
manufacturer (Philips being the last in 2002) sourced out their VCR
production to no-name brands. Before that, the level of reliability was
already down so far, that for most brands you could not notice the
difference.

Thinking about everything we both wrote, I tend to say, maybe it is not
the difference between name brands and no-name brands anymore after all.
It's the difference between budget and non-budget equipment. Competition
might not always be a good thing. Of course this difference did start
some time ago with people believing things made more cheaply could
perform equally well as the then usual more expensive equipment.

---
Met vriendelijke groet,

Maarten Bakker.

 

[W. Curtiss Priest]

Technical note: PCMCIA Ethernet and dongle, and dongle pinouts
Product: Megahertz CC10BT (or CC10B2)
Issue: missing dongle
Resources: ability to disassemble a delicate connector using
cutoff wheel and X-Acto knife. Ability to solder.

Attached below is the only discussion I found about actual
dongle pinouts. I make reference to the way in which the
original author (Magdy / Girgis) numbers the 15 pin edge
connector to the PCMCIA ethernet card.

If your laptop has an available USB connector, read no further.
MicroCenter has a USB to Ethernet device for $13 by Hawking (HUF11).
So, skip the idea of using a PCMCIA ethernet card.

You can also opt for the Hawking parallel port to Ethernet
(HPS1P) but prices range from $40-$60.

However, if you:

1. have a Megahertz PCMCIA card (non 3COM)
2. and a laptop without USB
3. or, just want to make your Megahertz card work

this note is for you.

History: 3COM acquired Megahertz. They, for whatever reason,
did NOT maintain the same dongle connection to the PCMCIA card.

QVS does make a universal "PCMCIA LAN Replacement Cable"
labeled "3COM 10BaseT Network Cards" model CPN-3C10T, and
this sells for $11.95 (their SKU 753699)

QVS replacement RJ45 dongle for 10BaseT network card. It is
compatible with the following 3COM PCMCIA NIC models:
3C562, 3C562B, 3C562C, 3C562D, 3C552D, 3C563,
3C563B, 3C563C, 3C563D, 3C589C, (RJ45 cable only, not
coaxial), 3C589D, CCE589ET, 3CCE589EC, 3CXE589ET.
(Connectors: PCMCIA to RJ45 Female; Length: 6")

However. While one might have hoped that the original
Megahertz card set the standard for later 3COM PCMCIA
cards, this is not true, probably because the original
card supported 10Base2.

My best knowledge is that the 10Base2 transceiver was
embedded in the original dongle.

Nonetheless, this card CAN be made to work in 10BaseT
(aka CAT5 / RJ45) with the QVS CPN-3C10T dongle.

Orientations:

When dealing with 3 connectors: The PCMCIA 68 pin connector
to the laptop, the 15 pin edge connector to the Ethernet card,
and the 8 pin RJ-45 connector for networking, it is easy to
get confused.

As I have already studied the 68 pin connector, you may
ignore that. What I needed to know was the orientation of
the connector to determine where ground and +5 VDC were
applied. (Answer: all four pins at the outer sides of
this connector are ground. And, holding the PCMCIA card,
staring into the female connectors with the card's label
on top, pin 1 is in the upper right hand corner. So pins
run 1-34, right to left, then 35-68 on the second row,
left to right. Power (from the laptop) enters via pins
17 and 15 (which are opposite each other in the dual inline
connector).

The kind respondent (below) "M." provides the correct
pinout for this 3COM dongle, except, neglected to mention
power. Power ground is applied to pin 7 (edge connector) to wire
green/black. +5 is applied to pin 13 to wire green.

This is not correct for the Megahertz card. +5 VDC is
on pin 11.

Disassembly:

It is only necessary to open the 15 pin edge connector to
adapt this dongle to the Megahertz PCMCIA card.

Picture these pieces:

1. edge connector with 15 solder pins
2. lower metal shield
3. upper metal shield
4. 2 tiny spring metal latches to hold on to the PCMCIA card
(that are part of the lower shield)
5. Hard plastic cover over the connector, but, with 2
squeezable side rails, so that the metal latches
can be released by squeezing
6. A crimped clip (with copper shielding) that holds
the dongle cable to the shields
7. A rubber boot that slips over the 2 shields and
provides strain relief for the 6" cable

In hindsight, it may be possible to remove the rubber boot,
by slipping a jewelers' screwdriver under the front lip.
There are 2 tongues that latch from the rubber boot to
the plastic cover.

Alternatively, take a dremel cutoff wheel, at 7,500 RPM
and slice into the strain relief -- on each side -- where
you see the "plastic weld" and continue that cut up to the
widened area of the shields. As the cord was heat welded
to this cover, it is necessary to work the screwdriver
around until the boot comes lose. Then, slipping the
boot away, we see the two metal shields, and a cable
crimp. We use the screwdriver to pry open the cable
crimp. Once that is done, the "lid" shield is popped
off by noting the 4 indents holding the lid to the base
shield. (Be careful NOT to stretch or bend the 2 spring
metal fingers at the front).

With the rubber boot removed, and the 2 shields removed,
we have the 15 pin edge connector fully exposed. (Note:
in sliding the hard plastic cover off, one must get 4
front edges to clear the shields. You may be able to do this
by prying lightly and inserting shirt pins to hold the
plastic above the shield lips. If you break the extremely
fragile plastic edges, you can always wrap the area with
a thin guage steel wire and apply some black hot melt
glue to hold the wire in place. (This, of course, is more
aesthetic, than critical.)

To remedy the power supply descrepancy, unsolder the
green wire at pin 13 and move it to pin 11.

Now, we need only deal with the 4 wires for Ethernet.

As "M." shows, the yellow wires are at pins 1 & 2, and
the red wires are at pins 3 & 4.

This is incorrect in two ways. First, pins 3 & 4 appear
to relate to 10Base2, so we (checking with an ohmmeter),
find that pins 5 & 6 are also live. However, just moving
the two red wires to pins 5 & 6 has transmit and receive
reversed, i.e., it works, but via a crossover cable. So,
one moves the two yellow wires to 5 & 6, and move the 2
red wires to 1 & 2. We leave 3 & 4 open. Keep the wires
with black stripes on the same side of the 15 pin connector.
(might it work fine if flipped? probably).

In determining this configuration I relied on the green
hub indicator light, and, when I got the pairs correct,
I also saw a green light from the side of the PCMCIA
card.

So, with these changes:

1. power
2. yellow pair
3. red pair

I had full Internet connectivity.

Reassembly:

Be careful your resoldered leads are not too high. The
external shields have insulation on the interior --
but -- a sharp edge could pierce that. I put a Dremel
cutoff wheel on low speed (7500 RPM) and with magnifying
goggles, I leveled each resoldered pin's top. Understand,
the lead may touch the insulated shields, but, "thou
shalt not pierce."

To finish the look. I take black hotmelt glue and a soldering
pen. I put the boot back. I then had two seams to fix. I
clamped the boot in a vise, and then ran the pen and glue
into the seams. Note: for adhesion, with the hotmelt glue
in the seams, run the hot pen against the original rubber.
This creates a very good bond. (if you only squirt glue
in, the seam will most likely pull apart)

As for 10Base2 (BNC), I suspect that the edge connector, pins
3 & 4 originally drove a transceiver that was contained
inside the Megahertz dongle. Today, hubs are so cheap, if you need
10Base2, just connect this to any hub (with BNC) and connect
to the BNC side of the hub. (As hubs with BNC are disappearing,
try eBay.)

Regards,

Curtiss Priest
bmslib@mit.edu

*********************
Original postings:

PCMCIA Ethernet and modem dongle
pinout here it is
1/8/05 7:13 PM 1/8/05 7:13 PM 1/8/05 7:14 PM
Magdy
Girgis
May 10 2002, 2:57 pm

In searching the groups, many ask the same question I was searching for an
answer to, but no answers at all . so here is my answer.

Having bought a cheap pcmcia ethernet card (without dongle) to experiment
with.

Because I am fed up with the stupid dongle, and my laptop has a "hidden"
pcmcia slot that could have modem/ethernet card.

Next to it is a group of small sockets which are wired to both RJ45 and RJ11
in the back.

The challenge was to identify which pins of the pcmcia to connect. (groups
search zilch).

So some testing and thinking.....................and later...on at
last....

[snip]

Now the difficult one is the ethernet card.

Mine is a SOCKET AE credit card. but having seen the xircom and others
they seem to be the same (but this is at your own risk not mine if
you decide to try)

By the way this only applies to those cards with straight dongles to an
RJ45, not to those with pods and BNC connectors.

Now the connector is 15 pins (the card has 15 small sockets)

if holding the card again the right way up and number the sockets from
RIGHT to LEFT as below

CARD 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
RJ45 6 3 2 1
As you know there are only 2 twisted pairs in use, although the RJ45 is 8
pins.

the first pair is connected to the RJ45 plug to pins 1 and 2

pin 1 should go to pin 7 of the card and pin 2 should go to pin 8

the second pair is connected to the RJ45 plug to pins 3 and 6 (yes six not
4)

pin 3 should go to pin 9 of the card and pin 6 to pin 10 of the card

and that is it

I hope this will be of help to some of the poor souls who are kept being
told to go and buy a new dongle rather than make their own cable (dongles
are unreasonably expensive)

Magdy
Girgis

May 11 2002, 2:46 am


Just to add the pinouts for EtherLink III (3Com)

This card has a different type connector , but still 15 pins the pinout is
also diffirent and is as follows, but as usual mess about at your own risk.

again counting from RIGHT to LEFT with the dongle end facing you and
label facing up

pin 1 of RJ45 goes to pin 4 of card
pin 2 of RJ45 goes to pin 3 of card
pin 3 of RJ45 goes to pin 2 of card
pin 6 of RJ45 goes to pin 1 of card

M.


--


W. Curtiss Priest, Director, CITS
Center for Information, Technology & Society
466 Pleasant St., Melrose, MA 02176
Voice: 781-662-4044 BMSLIB@MIT.EDU
Fax: 781-662-6882 WWW: http://Cybertrails.org

 

[JP]

Thank you to everyone who replied to my request.

J. Pallendino
Cleveland, Ohio

----- Original Message -----
From: "JP" <nospam@nospam.net
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.repair
Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2004 23:50
Subject: Wanted: XAM stereo amp's balance & bias setup instructions


Wanted: instructions to adjust the balance and bias controls of the XAM
Solid State Stereo Amp model 200. I'm posting this for a friend; he
mentioned "Korvettes" which may be the parent company or the store of
sale.

Reply to this newsgroup as the reply email address is fake.

Thank you in advance,

J. Pallendino

 

[Asimov]

"Mark" bravely wrote to "All" (18 Jan 05 14:44:58)
--- on the heady topic of "Re: Is operating more than 1 microwave oven in same
kitchen safe?"

I remember peaking a high Q 10KHz coil with substantial switching
power flowing and feeling the burning sensation under the skin when I
brought the hand too close. So it's not just microwaves...


Ma> From: Mark <me@privacy.net>
Ma> Xref: aeinews alt.home.repair:19289 sci.electronics.repair:7632

Ma> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 12:28:05 -0500, "default@uri.edu"
Ma> <default@uri.edu> wrote:

And it's not like it's stray x-rays, it's just radio
waves.

Ma> RF can burn you. If you held on to a metal antenna that was pushing
Ma> 100W through it on VHF, you'd feel it...

Ma> Granted a microwave is pushing far less and at the opposite end of the
Ma> practical RF band, but this falls in to the same category about people
Ma> who are worried they'll get brain cancer from using cell phones. We
Ma> won't know for another 20 years on that one.

Ma> Are there any reports of people getting cancer from microwaves? I
Ma> don't recall any. They've been around for 15-20 years mainstream.


.... Transformer designers take turns doing it.