Toshiba TV29C90 problem; Image fades to black...

[hallerb@aol.com]

on hot water tanks, in pennsylvania theres no sales tax on a installed
tank, but 7% if you take home and install yourself.

$28 on a 400 buck tank. that taken off install price can make doing it
yourself not worth the effort.

sales tax has lots of wierd rules

 

[Vic Smith]

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 21:30:25 -0500, Nate Nagel <njnagel@roosters.net>
wrote:

Vic Smith wrote:

BTW, I found that the Impala never came with a 3.1.
It's a 3.4 or 3.8.

--Vic

Duh, brain fart on my part. It is indeed a 3.4, which is a 2.8/3.1
based engine. Same basic engine, but larger displacement.

I was thinking about an Impala as my next used car, but have to check

out the 3.4 first. Might go for a Malibu which I can get with a 3.1.
In 2005 I rented a Malibu with 2.2 for a Florida trip and got 34mpg
highway. Seemed less thirsty in the city than a six, and had plenty
of power for me. I was surprised when I checked the oil before the
trip, and found it was a 2.2. A lot different than the 2.2 I have in
the '90 Corsica. Much quieter and more powerful.

--Vic

 

[Spamm Trappe]

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 18:17:55 -0800, Smitty Two wrote:

In article <1l23cp.4ad.17.1@news.alt.net>, "jusme" <jbleaux@gmail.com
wrote:

Title says all.

Well, not quite. It doesn't say what model you're looking for, what
condition you require, how much you're willing to pay, where you are in
the world, or whether you'd consider another brand of similar features
and quality.

Nor that he needs a keyboard with a working Caps Lock key.

 

[Clot]

hallerb@aol.com wrote:

on hot water tanks, in pennsylvania theres no sales tax on a installed
tank, but 7% if you take home and install yourself.

$28 on a 400 buck tank. that taken off install price can make doing it
yourself not worth the effort.

sales tax has lots of wierd rules

Yup, sure does. Even here in the UK, we have problems fathoming out Value
Added Tax (VAT) rules. However, I'm sure you didn't mean to respond to my
post!

 

[Clot]

trader4@optonline.net wrote:

On Feb 15, 8:43 am, "hall...@aol.com" <hall...@aol.com> wrote:
-



The tests are performed by independent labs to the EPA test
procedures and standards. ? It's not up to the maufacturers to
decide how to test, nor can they manipulate the results for the
cars. ? Same thing for the water heaters.- Hide quoted text -

no the manufactuers knowing the test procedures tweak the product to
look as good as possible

Yes, some of that can certainly be going on. But trying to change
the design of the product slightly to come out better in the standard
EPA test is a lot different than claiming the tests themselves are not
uniform because the manufacturer gets to decide the test method, how
the test is done, etc, and then manipulates the results they publish.

Agreed, like installing a gearbox that suits the test conditions rather than
every day use.

 

[Clot]

N8N wrote:

On Feb 14, 11:16 pm, Vic Smith <thismailautodele...@comcast.net
wrote:
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 20:53:12 -0500, "Lou"

lpogodajr292...@comcast.net> wrote:

Whichever figure is right and whatever the explanation, it still
seems to me that the mileage estimates published by the EPA are too
low, and it's seemed that way ever since I started paying attention
(way too many years ago).

Might be they don't account for your driving style. Might be
something else - not interested enough to look into it, but I'm
sure they lab test versus "real world."
Think you said you had an Impala, and the 3.1 engine coupled with the
GM lockup trans is an efficient combo. I consistently get 30-31 mpg
highway with mine ('97 Lumina) over a long stretch of varied terrain.
Measured by actual gas pumped into the tank over many thousands of
miles. My '88 Celebrity with the 2.8 did about 28 mpg, but always had
a heavier passenger load.

--Vic

It is HEAVILY dependent on driving style. In daily commuting (DC
traffic, lots of accelerating/slowing down) I get horrible mileage but
I too was getting about 30 MPG over the holidays, driving back and
forth to visit my parents (90% highway) same drivetrain as you, '05
Impala, 3.1/auto.

Wholly agree! my principal motor is an '02 Ford Focus 1.8 diesel - yes, I
know you don't have that across The Pond. It has just turned 125k miles
today and during that time has done 43.3 miles to the US gallon - close to
the brochure figure though I can't remember the exact number at this moment.
It's been a cracking good motor with little to complain about. If it lives
up to the performance of the two Fiesta diesels I've had, it should be good
for 250k before I either send it to its maker in the sky or sell it for
peanuts.

I gather from recent press comments here in Europe that you are about to be
exposed to high quality diesel motors from Europe soon. They are good and do
not have the air quality problems that you might associate with diesel
trucks. Have you noticed the tightening emission standards for them - both
in the US and Europe? Done me proud with shares in Johnson Matthey!

Diesel needs less refining than gas and therefore less energy in production,
emits less CO2 per gallon and has higher mpg, plus in real life has more
grunt than petrol (gas) units. Go for it!

They also display less variation in mpg between the urban and long distance
figures. In case you think I'm grossly biased, I also run a Peugeot 306
petrol and an 07 Peugeot 206cc diesel - now that's a little monster in
sheep's clothing - either 115 or 125 bhp in a shopping trolley. Great fun
and approx. 45 mp USg. Little too early to call having only done less than
3000 miles as yet.

PS I log all fuel and average over the entire life of the unit.

 

[Nate Nagel]

Vic Smith wrote:

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 06:34:01 -0800 (PST), N8N <njnagel@hotmail.com
wrote:



I still post there occasionally, but a lot of the intelligent regulars
have left and a lot of idiots and trolls have moved in The Impala
is a company provided vehicle, I don't have any MoPars at the moment
as my old Dart was a complete beater and not worth restoring, and
prices of good ones are rising. I do have a Porsche 944 that I bought
as a daily beater before I got a job with a company car, and my "real"
car is a '55 Studebaker - just as bulletproof as a MoPar, but
apparently not as collectible yet, so prices are still reasonable. Of
course, it's still somewhat apart after I lost my mind after a simple
gasket replacement turned into a drivetrain replacement...

nate


BTW, I found that the Impala never came with a 3.1.
It's a 3.4 or 3.8.

--Vic

Duh, brain fart on my part. It is indeed a 3.4, which is a 2.8/3.1
based engine. Same basic engine, but larger displacement.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

 

[Vic Smith]

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 13:16:27 -0600, jakdedert
<jakdedert@bellsouth.net> wrote:

That's because you have access to the recycler, know where it is, and
have a vehicle suitable to transport...also the time. I know it's
trivial to many--but monumental to others. I'd be hard-pressed to get a
50 gallon water heater in my old Corolla, although it could be done
(it's a station wagon). I'd want to put in several layers of padding
and some waterproofing. Many would not want to do so in their late
model Whizzmobiles.

Like I said, I've seen a lot of discarded water heaters....

All depends on locale. I replaced mine last year and the old one was

gone in a couple hours. Night before garbage pickup the scavengers
tour this area.
My Corsica sedan isn't much bigger than your car, and I tied the
new one to the roof to get it home, saving 50 bucks delivery.
I use blankets on the roof and lots of rope sideways and fore and aft
when I do that, so it's a bit of a hassle. But I don't want another
vehicle for hauling, since I seldom do it. Don't have space for a
trailer.
If I lived where I had to haul away the old tank, I might just pay for
the install and avoid the hassle.

--Vic

 

[Smitty Two]

In article <1l23cp.4ad.17.1@news.alt.net>, "jusme" <jbleaux@gmail.com>
wrote:

Title says all.

Well, not quite. It doesn't say what model you're looking for, what
condition you require, how much you're willing to pay, where you are in
the world, or whether you'd consider another brand of similar features
and quality.

 

[Vic Smith]

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 06:34:01 -0800 (PST), N8N <njnagel@hotmail.com>
wrote:

I still post there occasionally, but a lot of the intelligent regulars
have left and a lot of idiots and trolls have moved in The Impala
is a company provided vehicle, I don't have any MoPars at the moment
as my old Dart was a complete beater and not worth restoring, and
prices of good ones are rising. I do have a Porsche 944 that I bought
as a daily beater before I got a job with a company car, and my "real"
car is a '55 Studebaker - just as bulletproof as a MoPar, but
apparently not as collectible yet, so prices are still reasonable. Of
course, it's still somewhat apart after I lost my mind after a simple
gasket replacement turned into a drivetrain replacement...

nate

BTW, I found that the Impala never came with a 3.1.
It's a 3.4 or 3.8.

--Vic

 

[Vic Smith]

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 20:15:51 -0500, "Lou"
<lpogodajr292185@comcast.net> wrote:

hallerb@aol.com> wrote in message
news:4ee42934-d646-4a41-a191-b01c05be3ada@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 15, 10:33 am, trad...@optonline.net wrote:
On Feb 15, 8:43 am, "hall...@aol.com" <hall...@aol.com> wrote:

-

The tests are performed by independent labs to the EPA test procedures
and standards. ? It's not up to the maufacturers to decide how to
test, nor can they manipulate the results for the cars. ? Same thing
for the water heaters.- Hide quoted text -

no the manufactuers knowing the test procedures tweak the product to
look as good as possible

Yes, some of that can certainly be going on. But trying to change
the design of the product slightly to come out better in the standard
EPA test is a lot different than claiming the tests themselves are not
uniform because the manufacturer gets to decide the test method, how
the test is done, etc, and then manipulates the results they publish.

well everyone knew the old tests werent valid yet it took many years
to get them changed

Yes, they weren't valid - the numbers they gave were to low - my mileage was
always better than the EPA estimates.

Well, they got farther from your experience. They now say your

highway mileage is even lower.

--Vic

 

[msg]

Lou wrote:
<snip>

Considering that starting in 2008 supplementary tests are conducted to
estimate the effects of high speed (up to 80 mph), use of air conditioning,
and cold temperatures (down to 20 degrees F), the claim that current figures
represent ideal conditions also seem somewhat out of sync with the facts.

20 degrees F cold? It is high time that automotive design and testing
accommodate the northern climates where cars last about as long as a snowflake
on a hot radiator. Test in International Falls in February on a track
laden with salt and urea at minus 20 degrees F.

Michael

 

A cost that nobody seems to have factored in, is removal and disposal of
the oldwaterheater.

Cost? I get money for the old units at the recycler, it's an insignificant
amount, but probably enough to cover the fuel spent getting it there.

Somewhere I saw the cost as 10 dollars at Home Depot for removal of
the old heater.
That's of course if you pay the 400 dollars for installation in the
first place.
Otherwise, the cost is to leave it outside for a week until someone
with a pickup takes it to the recyclers for you.

 

[Lou]

<hallerb@aol.com> wrote in message
news:4ee42934-d646-4a41-a191-b01c05be3ada@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 15, 10:33 am, trad...@optonline.net wrote:

On Feb 15, 8:43 am, "hall...@aol.com" <hall...@aol.com> wrote:

-

The tests are performed by independent labs to the EPA test procedures
and standards. ? It's not up to the maufacturers to decide how to
test, nor can they manipulate the results for the cars. ? Same thing
for the water heaters.- Hide quoted text -

no the manufactuers knowing the test procedures tweak the product to
look as good as possible

Yes, some of that can certainly be going on. But trying to change
the design of the product slightly to come out better in the standard
EPA test is a lot different than claiming the tests themselves are not
uniform because the manufacturer gets to decide the test method, how
the test is done, etc, and then manipulates the results they publish.

well everyone knew the old tests werent valid yet it took many years
to get them changed

Yes, they weren't valid - the numbers they gave were to low - my mileage was
always better than the EPA estimates.

 

[Lou]

"Only Just" <ifixit2@hotmail(dot)com> wrote in message
news:47b573a0$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...

"Edwin Pawlowski" <esp@snet.net> wrote in message
news:E7etj.6146$xq2.2565@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net...

"Vic Smith" <thismailautodeleted@comcast.net> wrote in message

Whichever figure is right and whatever the explanation, it still seems
to
me
that the mileage estimates published by the EPA are too low, and it's
seemed
that way ever since I started paying attention (way too many years
ago).

Might be they don't account for your driving style. Might be
something else - not interested enough to look into it, but I'm
sure they lab test versus "real world."


The news 2008 figures take real life into consideration and are much
closer to reality. Previous figures were ideal lab conditions.


It all points down to the fact that average Joe citizen can't tell the
difference unless he can find out exactly how they take all these
measurements (The method used and exactly what figures) that each company
used and how (If they did) manipulated those figures to get the result as
they publish. The main thing that the Government is interested in is a
standard across the relevant industry so everyone can make a comparison.
Justy.

Anyone with access to the web can look up how the tests are done. The
testing protocols are federally mandated, everyone must use the same test,
10%-15% of the tests are confirmed by the EPA, and the only mileage figures
the manufacturers can advertise are the ones coming out of the tests.
Vehicles weighing over 8500 pounds (vehicle, all fluids, maximum carrying
capacity) are exempt from testing.

 

[Lou]

<hallerb@aol.com> wrote in message
news:d2cd4f76-5a5a-405d-926c-e20711942f37@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com...

EPA figure is based on sea level wht IDEAL driving condition, weather,
road, wind, temp., etc.

EPA numbers are bogus the worst were on vehicles like PRIUS.

tests always favor the manufacturer..........

According to the EPA's fuel economy guide for 2008, the Prius is rated at
48/45 for city/highway. The 2008 model year isn't very far advanced and
there's only 23 2008 models listed in the shared fuel economy estimates, but
those drivers claim actual mileage of 35 to 56 mpg, with an average of 43.5,
I'd say the estimates aren't that bad. The best driver claims an average of
56.2 mpg for 38% stop and go and 62% highway driving - that car is driven in
Arizona. The worst driver claims a mere 35.1 for a car driven in
California - no percentages for city/highway are given.

 

[Mark D. Zacharias]

"Brasto" <bram.stolk@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:49edda16-d892-460c-9646-452253fc1f3d@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...

My Yamaha RX496 Tuner-Amplifier has a problem in its Power Supply
Ckts.
It appeared that the internal thermal fuse in the primary transformer
is blown.
I have by-passed that fuse, but when turning on the amplifier it draws
well over 5 Amp at 240 VAC.
Only when I disconnect the two RED-wires running from the Impedance
switch to the Main PCB will return Prim Current to a low 100 mA or so
level.

I dunno what's really connected to these 2 red wires, I belief it will
be a rectifier bridge and some Big Cap smoothing Filter finally
feeding the final output stage.

Doing a straight forward Trouble Shooting on Bridge rectfier and Elco
as well as Output transistors did not show any suspects.

Is there any help out here telling me the most likely cause of error?
Mark Z, if you are still around and can tell me an equivalent or the
original ckt diagram ?

Thanks
Brasto

This almost NEVER happens unless someone has defeated the primary fuse and
in this case, probably the turn-on relay as well.

If the outputs are really good,check the filter caps and look to see if a
transistor insulator may have shorted through to the heastsink.

I'll try sending the manual direct.

Mark Z.

 

[Lou]

"Tony Hwang" <dragon40@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Nt6tj.40274$Ly.30911@pd7urf1no...

Hi,
EPA figure is based on sea level wht IDEAL driving condition, weather,
road, wind, temp., etc.

Considering that the EPA's National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory is
located in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and that Ann Arbor is about 840 feet above
sea level, and that the EPA conducts its own tests at this facility, I think
your claim that the mileage figures are based on sea level conditions is
suspect.

Considering that starting in 2008 supplementary tests are conducted to
estimate the effects of high speed (up to 80 mph), use of air conditioning,
and cold temperatures (down to 20 degrees F), the claim that current figures
represent ideal conditions also seem somewhat out of sync with the facts.

 

[Brasto]

On 29 jan, 04:55, "Mark D. Zacharias" <mzachar...@nonsense.net> wrote:

"Brasto" <bram.st...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:49edda16-d892-460c-9646-452253fc1f3d@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...





My Yamaha RX496 Tuner-Amplifier has a problem in its Power Supply
Ckts.
It appeared that the internal thermal fuse in the primary transformer
is blown.
I have by-passed that fuse, but when turning on the amplifier it draws
well over 5 Amp at 240 VAC.
Only when I disconnect the two RED-wires running from the Impedance
switch to the Main PCB will return Prim Current to a low 100 mA or so
level.

I dunno what's really connected to these 2 red wires, I belief it will
be a rectifier bridge and some Big Cap smoothing Filter finally
feeding the final output stage.

Doing a straight forward Trouble Shooting on Bridge rectfier and Elco
as well as Output transistors did not show any suspects.

Is there any help out here telling me the most likely cause of error?
Mark Z, if you are still around and can tell me an equivalent or the
original ckt diagram ?

Thanks
Brasto

This almost NEVER happens unless someone has defeated the primary fuse and
in this case, probably the turn-on relay as well.

If the outputs are really good,check the filter caps and look to see if a
transistor insulator may have shorted through to the heastsink.

I'll try sending the manual direct.

Mark Z.- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -

- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -

Mark, as allways a great TY for your support. I now have a clue where
the two red ones run to. I also see a few jumpers which I can break to
isolate the short. I'll keep you posted on results......

 

[Brasto]

On 29 jan, 04:55, "Mark D. Zacharias" <mzachar...@nonsense.net> wrote:

"Brasto" <bram.st...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:49edda16-d892-460c-9646-452253fc1f3d@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...





My Yamaha RX496 Tuner-Amplifier has a problem in its Power Supply
Ckts.
It appeared that the internal thermal fuse in the primary transformer
is blown.
I have by-passed that fuse, but when turning on the amplifier it draws
well over 5 Amp at 240 VAC.
Only when I disconnect the two RED-wires running from the Impedance
switch to the Main PCB will return Prim Current to a low 100 mA or so
level.

I dunno what's really connected to these 2 red wires, I belief it will
be a rectifier bridge and some Big Cap smoothing Filter finally
feeding the final output stage.

Doing a straight forward Trouble Shooting on Bridge rectfier and Elco
as well as Output transistors did not show any suspects.

Is there any help out here telling me the most likely cause of error?
Mark Z, if you are still around and can tell me an equivalent or the
original ckt diagram ?

Thanks
Brasto

This almost NEVER happens unless someone has defeated the primary fuse and
in this case, probably the turn-on relay as well.

If the outputs are really good,check the filter caps and look to see if a
transistor insulator may have shorted through to the heastsink.

I'll try sending the manual direct.

Mark Z.- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -

- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -

Mark,
Problem solved, Yamaha restored to manufacturers specs.
I used an external adjustable powersupply to feed the main pcb of the
Yamaha. It appeared that as soon as I crancked the voltage above
~~13VDC on the Bridge rectifier inputs that the current sink
avalanched from a few mA to a full short.

Problem appeared to be the bridge rectifier S4VB20 which passes the
normal VOM checks but fails when voltages above 13 VDC are applied.

Again thanks for your support.
Bram