sci.electronics.repair@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

* Best solder free electrical connection - 20 messages, 12 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/11e5e6461418f740?hl=en
* Backlight Dummy Load??? - 4 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/269588fe600f676f?hl=en
* Toshiba lcd tv - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/b76db16fe68b702a?hl=en

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Best solder free electrical connection
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/11e5e6461418f740?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 20 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 22 2010 10:44 am
From: Bob Eager

On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 12:39:08 -0500, krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:

> So what? The SST was canceled because it didn't make sense. You
> nitwits weren't bright enough to figure that out/

Don't you think these US apologists are a perfect example of the Dunning-
Kruger effect?

--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

*lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor

== 2 of 20 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 22 2010 12:25 pm
From: clare@snyder.on.ca

On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 14:33:50 +0100, ><(((°> <nospam@butfish.com>
wrote:

>On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 14:31:33 +0100, Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>> In article <op.vhucy5uvcnngb9@me-pc>, ><(((°> <nospam@butfish.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Who was to know in the sixties that oil was going to rise to the price
>>> it
>>> is today?
>> I've lost track with all of the ups and downs, but aren't oil prices
>> back pretty close to what they were in the 60s when adjusted for
>> inflation? Might even be a little below.
>>
>
>Not in Blighty they're not - no way near.

Not in Canada either. In 1969 a gallon of gas sold for about $0.45 and
a reasonably paid worker (like a licenced mechanic) earned $4.50 per
hour.
Convert that to Metric and gasoline was about $0.10 a liter.
Today gasoline hovers around the buck a liter range, and not too many
workers earn $22.50 an hour - which would make gasoline virtually
twice as expensive in real dollars as it was in 1969.

== 3 of 20 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 22 2010 12:34 pm
From: "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"

On 22 Aug 2010 17:44:11 GMT, Bob Eager <rde42@spamcop.net> wrote:

>On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 12:39:08 -0500, krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
>
>> So what? The SST was canceled because it didn't make sense. You
>> nitwits weren't bright enough to figure that out/
>
>Don't you think these US apologists are a perfect example of the Dunning-
>Kruger effect?

Apologists, no. Bashers, certainly.

== 4 of 20 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 22 2010 12:52 pm
From: "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"

On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 15:25:29 -0400, clare@snyder.on.ca wrote:

>On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 14:33:50 +0100, ><(((°> <nospam@butfish.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 14:31:33 +0100, Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>> In article <op.vhucy5uvcnngb9@me-pc>, ><(((°> <nospam@butfish.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Who was to know in the sixties that oil was going to rise to the price
>>>> it
>>>> is today?
>>> I've lost track with all of the ups and downs, but aren't oil prices
>>> back pretty close to what they were in the 60s when adjusted for
>>> inflation? Might even be a little below.
>>>
>>
>>Not in Blighty they're not - no way near.
>
>Not in Canada either. In 1969 a gallon of gas sold for about $0.45 and
>a reasonably paid worker (like a licenced mechanic) earned $4.50 per
>hour.

In the US it's close. The inflation since '69 is 5.79X. I remember paying
about $.30/gallon during a price war and about $.36 normally. So that's $1.74
to $2.08 today. Gasoline is $2.41/gallon here, so yes a little more.

http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi

also:

http://zfacts.com/p/35.html

>Convert that to Metric and gasoline was about $0.10 a liter.
>Today gasoline hovers around the buck a liter range, and not too many
>workers earn $22.50 an hour - which would make gasoline virtually
>twice as expensive in real dollars as it was in 1969.

OTOH, I'm making well over 25x what I was making in 1970 (I made nothing in
'69).

The difference is easily explained by tax.

== 5 of 20 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 22 2010 12:57 pm
From: Phil Hobbs

aemeijers wrote:
> krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
> (snip)
>>>> They spent wads of money to
>>>> build and maintain them, then junked the entire fleet. It was noisy
>>>> and
>>>> very fuel inefficient. That forced the fares so high that they weren't
>>>> able to compete with better planes from multiple countries.
>>> What other supersonic airliners are those then?...
>>
>> Don't read well, do you? The 747 kicked its butt.
>
> 747 ain't supersonic. But on a dollar/gallon per passenger mile basis,
> it is a whole lot cheaper to run, when anywhere near fully loaded. In
> recent years, due to passenger volume being so reduced, a whole lotta
> 747s and other jumbos were parked in the desert, in 'preservation pack'
> status. Airlines switched to the itty-bitty jets for many routes. Now
> that volume is picking up again, some jumbos are being brought back out
> of storage. At one point, they were gonna modernize the 747 fleet, but
> it will probably never happen, because Boeing would rather sell new
> planes, and Airbus is nipping at their heels. But the long delays in the
> Boeing Dreamliner rampup can be at least partially blamed on the
> airlines getting gun-shy. It costs a lot of money to keep airplanes with
> a lot of lifespan left sitting in the desert. Another air disaster or
> major fuel cost spike, and there will be multiple airlines going belly-up.
>
> Supersonics only made sense for civilian use for a very tiny niche
> market of rich people and businessmen who had to have face time
> someplace far away in a hurry. That niche market got even smaller with
> the rise of cheap easily available hi-rez video-conferencing services. A
> lot of execs don't travel near as much as they used to. Plus, of course,
> with the general economic downturn, there are a lot fewer executives.
> Either retired or flipping burgers for somebody else.
>
> Absent some technological leap that allows cheap suborbital flights for
> the masses, world travel will be slower and more expensive from here on
> out.
>

Plus the externalities, such as having your windows rattle twice a day
(waking the baby, of course) just because some rich nitwit couldn't wait
another couple of hours to get to LA. Anyway, rich nitwits save more
time than that by buying or renting their own subsonic jet, which goes
wherever they want, whenever they want. It's a far more rational
solution (if you can call it that).

There was also a big outcry at the time about the pollution--apparently
folks were worried about damage to the ozone layer or something, due to
inefficient engines spewing crap in the stratosphere. I'm not sure
whether there was anything to that (there so often isn't, in the
environmentalist cosmos), but that and the sonic booms were what got
supersonic flight banned.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal
ElectroOptical Innovations
55 Orchard Rd
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
845-480-2058
hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net

== 6 of 20 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 22 2010 1:50 pm
From: Bob Eager

On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 14:34:04 -0500, krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:

> On 22 Aug 2010 17:44:11 GMT, Bob Eager <rde42@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 12:39:08 -0500, krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
>>
>>> So what? The SST was canceled because it didn't make sense. You
>>> nitwits weren't bright enough to figure that out/
>>
>>Don't you think these US apologists are a perfect example of the
>>Dunning- Kruger effect?
>
> Apologists, no. Bashers, certainly.

MRD.

--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

*lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor

== 7 of 20 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 22 2010 2:18 pm
From: Dave

On 22/08/2010 02:08, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

> It was a fast plane, but a poor design.

Fast it was, but poor design NO.

> They spent wads of money to
> build and maintain them, then junked the entire fleet. It was noisy and
> very fuel inefficient.

As is any super fast jet. I should know, I spent many years working in
that environment.

> That forced the fares so high that they weren't
> able to compete with better planes from multiple countries.

Lots of passengers enjoyed the fact they could spend the day shopping in
another continent and be home for tea.

Dave

== 8 of 20 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 22 2010 12:16 pm
From: Frank Erskine

On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 12:39:08 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

>On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 18:13:58 +0100, ><(((°> <nospam@butfish.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 16:45:08 +0100, krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
>><krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 12:01:04 +0100, tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <-NmdnY7Fjv0c5e3RnZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d@earthlink.com>, Michael A.
>>>> Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> scribeth thus
>>>>>
>>>>>> <(((°> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 22:26:53 +0100, <clare@snyder.on.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 14:46:34 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
>>>>>> > <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> Dave wrote:
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> On 21/08/2010 03:59, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> > geoff wrote:
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> > That's a very good example of why most people with brains
>>>>>> left
>>>>>> >>> Europe
>>>>>> >>> > for 'The new World'.
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> So how come Britain made a better nuclear bomb than the New
>>>>>> World? And
>>>>>> >>> the New World wanted as much detail of our superior technology as
>>>>>> they
>>>>>> >>> could get?
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> What superior technology? Lucas?
>>>>>> > No "superior technology" has come out of GB since about 1950. - and
>>>>>> > that may be stretchng it. There have been a few "good ideas" since
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I might be wrong but I thought Concorde started flying after 1950.
>>>>>> Though then again the Septics didn't like the noise, or was it a
>>>>>> classic
>>>>>> case of "Not Invented Here" syndrome?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It was a fast plane, but a poor design.
>>>>
>>>> Not that bad really as it was the first one..
>>>>
>>>>> They spent wads of money to
>>>>> build and maintain them, then junked the entire fleet. It was noisy
>>>>> and
>>>>> very fuel inefficient. That forced the fares so high that they weren't
>>>>> able to compete with better planes from multiple countries.
>>>>
>>>> What other supersonic airliners are those then?...
>>>
>>> Don't read well, do you? The 747 kicked its butt.
>>
>>The 747 goes about 600 mph top whack.
>>Supersonic means greater than 768 mph so the 747 ain't a supersonic
>>airliner.
>
>I guess that answered my question (you don't read well).
>
>The Concorde was not successful. The 747 is.
>
>>You might have a military plane faster but you haven't got a passenger
>>airliner faster.
>
>So what? The SST was canceled because it didn't make sense. You nitwits
>weren't bright enough to figure that out/

Probably crimps are the best solder-free connections.

--
Frank Erskine

== 9 of 20 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 22 2010 2:54 pm
From: Bob Eager

On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 20:16:50 +0100, Frank Erskine wrote:

> On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 12:39:08 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
> <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 18:13:58 +0100, ><(((°> <nospam@butfish.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 16:45:08 +0100, krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
>>><krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 12:01:04 +0100, tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <-NmdnY7Fjv0c5e3RnZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d@earthlink.com>, Michael
>>>>> A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> scribeth thus
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <(((°> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 22:26:53 +0100, <clare@snyder.on.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> > On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 14:46:34 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
>>>>>>> > <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >> Dave wrote:
>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>> >>> On 21/08/2010 03:59, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>>> >>> > geoff wrote:
>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>> >>> > That's a very good example of why most people with
>>>>>>> >>> > brains
>>>>>>> left
>>>>>>> >>> Europe
>>>>>>> >>> > for 'The new World'.
>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>> >>> So how come Britain made a better nuclear bomb than the New
>>>>>>> World? And
>>>>>>> >>> the New World wanted as much detail of our superior technology
>>>>>>> >>> as
>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>> >>> could get?
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> What superior technology? Lucas?
>>>>>>> > No "superior technology" has come out of GB since about 1950. -
>>>>>>> > and
>>>>>>> > that may be stretchng it. There have been a few "good ideas"
>>>>>>> > since
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I might be wrong but I thought Concorde started flying after 1950.
>>>>>>> Though then again the Septics didn't like the noise, or was it a
>>>>>>> classic
>>>>>>> case of "Not Invented Here" syndrome?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It was a fast plane, but a poor design.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not that bad really as it was the first one..
>>>>>
>>>>>> They spent wads of money to
>>>>>> build and maintain them, then junked the entire fleet. It was
>>>>>> noisy and
>>>>>> very fuel inefficient. That forced the fares so high that they
>>>>>> weren't able to compete with better planes from multiple countries.
>>>>>
>>>>> What other supersonic airliners are those then?...
>>>>
>>>> Don't read well, do you? The 747 kicked its butt.
>>>
>>>The 747 goes about 600 mph top whack. Supersonic means greater than 768
>>>mph so the 747 ain't a supersonic airliner.
>>
>>I guess that answered my question (you don't read well).
>>
>>The Concorde was not successful. The 747 is.
>>
>>>You might have a military plane faster but you haven't got a passenger
>>>airliner faster.
>>
>>So what? The SST was canceled because it didn't make sense. You
>>nitwits weren't bright enough to figure that out/
>
> Probably crimps are the best solder-free connections.

I dunno. Spot welds?

--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

*lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor

== 10 of 20 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 22 2010 2:53 pm
From: tony sayer

In article <geh276lr23mg4leqijuv79csegd6o5b547@4ax.com>,
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> scribeth thus
>On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 12:01:04 +0100, tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In article <-NmdnY7Fjv0c5e3RnZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d@earthlink.com>, Michael A.
>>Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> scribeth thus
>>>
>>>><(((°> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 22:26:53 +0100, <clare@snyder.on.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 14:46:34 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
>>>> > <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Dave wrote:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> On 21/08/2010 03:59, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>>>> >>> >
>>>> >>> > geoff wrote:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> > That's a very good example of why most people with brains left
>>>> >>> Europe
>>>> >>> > for 'The new World'.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> So how come Britain made a better nuclear bomb than the New World? And
>>>> >>> the New World wanted as much detail of our superior technology as they
>>>> >>> could get?
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> What superior technology? Lucas?
>>>> > No "superior technology" has come out of GB since about 1950. - and
>>>> > that may be stretchng it. There have been a few "good ideas" since
>>>>
>>>> I might be wrong but I thought Concorde started flying after 1950.
>>>> Though then again the Septics didn't like the noise, or was it a classic
>>>> case of "Not Invented Here" syndrome?
>>>
>>>
>>> It was a fast plane, but a poor design.
>>
>>Not that bad really as it was the first one..
>>
>>>They spent wads of money to
>>>build and maintain them, then junked the entire fleet. It was noisy and
>>>very fuel inefficient. That forced the fares so high that they weren't
>>>able to compete with better planes from multiple countries.
>>
>>What other supersonic airliners are those then?...
>
>Don't read well, do you? The 747 kicked its butt.

Yes I read fine I interpret differently from you!...

The 747 has nothing to do with supersonic air travel its a completely
different class of aircraft.

We \were\ talking about Supersonic airliners....
--
Tony Sayer

== 11 of 20 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 22 2010 2:53 pm
From: tony sayer

In article <m2o276d9vv1tkkp2tluq1koi9uovlgh7cu@4ax.com>,
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> scribeth thus
>On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 18:13:58 +0100, ><(((°> <nospam@butfish.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 16:45:08 +0100, krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
>><krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 12:01:04 +0100, tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <-NmdnY7Fjv0c5e3RnZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d@earthlink.com>, Michael A.
>>>> Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> scribeth thus
>>>>>
>>>>>> <(((°> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 22:26:53 +0100, <clare@snyder.on.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 14:46:34 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
>>>>>> > <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> Dave wrote:
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> On 21/08/2010 03:59, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> > geoff wrote:
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> > That's a very good example of why most people with brains
>>>>>> left
>>>>>> >>> Europe
>>>>>> >>> > for 'The new World'.
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> So how come Britain made a better nuclear bomb than the New
>>>>>> World? And
>>>>>> >>> the New World wanted as much detail of our superior technology as
>>>>>> they
>>>>>> >>> could get?
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> What superior technology? Lucas?
>>>>>> > No "superior technology" has come out of GB since about 1950. - and
>>>>>> > that may be stretchng it. There have been a few "good ideas" since
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I might be wrong but I thought Concorde started flying after 1950.
>>>>>> Though then again the Septics didn't like the noise, or was it a
>>>>>> classic
>>>>>> case of "Not Invented Here" syndrome?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It was a fast plane, but a poor design.
>>>>
>>>> Not that bad really as it was the first one..
>>>>
>>>>> They spent wads of money to
>>>>> build and maintain them, then junked the entire fleet. It was noisy
>>>>> and
>>>>> very fuel inefficient. That forced the fares so high that they weren't
>>>>> able to compete with better planes from multiple countries.
>>>>
>>>> What other supersonic airliners are those then?...
>>>
>>> Don't read well, do you? The 747 kicked its butt.
>>
>>The 747 goes about 600 mph top whack.
>>Supersonic means greater than 768 mph so the 747 ain't a supersonic
>>airliner.
>
>I guess that answered my question (you don't read well).
>
>The Concorde was not successful.

It was .. for what it did...

--
Tony Sayer

== 12 of 20 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 22 2010 3:41 pm
From: ><(((°>

On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 20:57:06 +0100, Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

> aemeijers wrote:
>> krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
>> (snip)
>>>>> They spent wads of money to
>>>>> build and maintain them, then junked the entire fleet. It was noisy
>>>>> and
>>>>> very fuel inefficient. That forced the fares so high that they
>>>>> weren't
>>>>> able to compete with better planes from multiple countries.
>>>> What other supersonic airliners are those then?...
>>>
>>> Don't read well, do you? The 747 kicked its butt.
>> 747 ain't supersonic. But on a dollar/gallon per passenger mile
>> basis, it is a whole lot cheaper to run, when anywhere near fully
>> loaded. In recent years, due to passenger volume being so reduced, a
>> whole lotta 747s and other jumbos were parked in the desert, in
>> 'preservation pack' status. Airlines switched to the itty-bitty jets
>> for many routes. Now that volume is picking up again, some jumbos are
>> being brought back out of storage. At one point, they were gonna
>> modernize the 747 fleet, but it will probably never happen, because
>> Boeing would rather sell new planes, and Airbus is nipping at their
>> heels. But the long delays in the Boeing Dreamliner rampup can be at
>> least partially blamed on the airlines getting gun-shy. It costs a lot
>> of money to keep airplanes with a lot of lifespan left sitting in the
>> desert. Another air disaster or major fuel cost spike, and there will
>> be multiple airlines going belly-up.
>> Supersonics only made sense for civilian use for a very tiny niche
>> market of rich people and businessmen who had to have face time
>> someplace far away in a hurry. That niche market got even smaller with
>> the rise of cheap easily available hi-rez video-conferencing services.
>> A lot of execs don't travel near as much as they used to. Plus, of
>> course, with the general economic downturn, there are a lot fewer
>> executives. Either retired or flipping burgers for somebody else.
>> Absent some technological leap that allows cheap suborbital flights
>> for the masses, world travel will be slower and more expensive from
>> here on out.
>>
>
> Plus the externalities, such as having your windows rattle twice a day
> (waking the baby, of course) just because some rich nitwit couldn't wait
> another couple of hours to get to LA. Anyway, rich nitwits save more
> time than that by buying or renting their own subsonic jet, which goes
> wherever they want, whenever they want. It's a far more rational
> solution (if you can call it that).
>
> There was also a big outcry at the time about the pollution--apparently
> folks were worried about damage to the ozone layer or something, due to
> inefficient engines spewing crap in the stratosphere. I'm not sure
> whether there was anything to that (there so often isn't, in the
> environmentalist cosmos), but that and the sonic booms were what got
> supersonic flight banned.
>
> Cheers
>
> Phil Hobbs
>

Just more symptoms on Not Invented Here syndrome.

== 13 of 20 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 22 2010 4:05 pm
From: Bob Eager

On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 23:41:57 +0100, ><(((°> wrote:

> On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 20:57:06 +0100, Phil Hobbs
> <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
>
>> aemeijers wrote:
>>> krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
>>> (snip)
>>>>>> They spent wads of money to
>>>>>> build and maintain them, then junked the entire fleet. It was
>>>>>> noisy and
>>>>>> very fuel inefficient. That forced the fares so high that they
>>>>>> weren't
>>>>>> able to compete with better planes from multiple countries.
>>>>> What other supersonic airliners are those then?...
>>>>
>>>> Don't read well, do you? The 747 kicked its butt.
>>> 747 ain't supersonic. But on a dollar/gallon per passenger mile
>>> basis, it is a whole lot cheaper to run, when anywhere near fully
>>> loaded. In recent years, due to passenger volume being so reduced, a
>>> whole lotta 747s and other jumbos were parked in the desert, in
>>> 'preservation pack' status. Airlines switched to the itty-bitty jets
>>> for many routes. Now that volume is picking up again, some jumbos are
>>> being brought back out of storage. At one point, they were gonna
>>> modernize the 747 fleet, but it will probably never happen, because
>>> Boeing would rather sell new planes, and Airbus is nipping at their
>>> heels. But the long delays in the Boeing Dreamliner rampup can be at
>>> least partially blamed on the airlines getting gun-shy. It costs a lot
>>> of money to keep airplanes with a lot of lifespan left sitting in the
>>> desert. Another air disaster or major fuel cost spike, and there will
>>> be multiple airlines going belly-up.
>>> Supersonics only made sense for civilian use for a very tiny niche
>>> market of rich people and businessmen who had to have face time
>>> someplace far away in a hurry. That niche market got even smaller with
>>> the rise of cheap easily available hi-rez video-conferencing services.
>>> A lot of execs don't travel near as much as they used to. Plus, of
>>> course, with the general economic downturn, there are a lot fewer
>>> executives. Either retired or flipping burgers for somebody else.
>>> Absent some technological leap that allows cheap suborbital flights
>>> for the masses, world travel will be slower and more expensive from
>>> here on out.
>>>
>>>
>> Plus the externalities, such as having your windows rattle twice a day
>> (waking the baby, of course) just because some rich nitwit couldn't
>> wait another couple of hours to get to LA. Anyway, rich nitwits save
>> more time than that by buying or renting their own subsonic jet, which
>> goes wherever they want, whenever they want. It's a far more rational
>> solution (if you can call it that).
>>
>> There was also a big outcry at the time about the pollution--apparently
>> folks were worried about damage to the ozone layer or something, due to
>> inefficient engines spewing crap in the stratosphere. I'm not sure
>> whether there was anything to that (there so often isn't, in the
>> environmentalist cosmos), but that and the sonic booms were what got
>> supersonic flight banned.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Phil Hobbs
>>
>>
> Just more symptoms on Not Invented Here syndrome.

Or Envy...!

--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

*lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor

== 14 of 20 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 22 2010 4:15 pm
From: Tony Bryer

On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 13:26:45 -0400 Aemeijers wrote :
> 747 ain't supersonic. But on a dollar/gallon per passenger mile basis,
> it is a whole lot cheaper to run, when anywhere near fully loaded. In
> recent years, due to passenger volume being so reduced, a whole lotta
> 747s and other jumbos were parked in the desert, in 'preservation pack'
> status. Airlines switched to the itty-bitty jets for many routes.

My understanding (possibly wrong) was the itty-bitty 777 is significantly
cheaper to run. ISTM that it wasn't so long ago that twin jets weren't
allowed to do transatlantic flights, but on the more recent UK-USA
flights I've done it's nearly always been a 767 or 777

--
Tony Bryer, Greentram: 'Software to build on' Melbourne, Australia
www.superbeam.co.uk www.eurobeam.co.uk www.greentram.com

== 15 of 20 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 22 2010 4:59 pm
From: "Michael A. Terrell"

tony sayer wrote:
>
> In article <m2o276d9vv1tkkp2tluq1koi9uovlgh7cu@4ax.com>,
> krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> scribeth thus
> >On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 18:13:58 +0100, ><(((°> <nospam@butfish.com> wrote:
> >
> >>On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 16:45:08 +0100, krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
> >><krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 12:01:04 +0100, tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> In article <-NmdnY7Fjv0c5e3RnZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d@earthlink.com>, Michael A.
> >>>> Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> scribeth thus
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> <(((°> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 22:26:53 +0100, <clare@snyder.on.ca> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> > On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 14:46:34 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
> >>>>>> > <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>>>>> >
> >>>>>> >>
> >>>>>> >> Dave wrote:
> >>>>>> >>>
> >>>>>> >>> On 21/08/2010 03:59, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
> >>>>>> >>> >
> >>>>>> >>> > geoff wrote:
> >>>>>> >>>
> >>>>>> >>> > That's a very good example of why most people with brains
> >>>>>> left
> >>>>>> >>> Europe
> >>>>>> >>> > for 'The new World'.
> >>>>>> >>>
> >>>>>> >>> So how come Britain made a better nuclear bomb than the New
> >>>>>> World? And
> >>>>>> >>> the New World wanted as much detail of our superior technology as
> >>>>>> they
> >>>>>> >>> could get?
> >>>>>> >>
> >>>>>> >>
> >>>>>> >> What superior technology? Lucas?
> >>>>>> > No "superior technology" has come out of GB since about 1950. - and
> >>>>>> > that may be stretchng it. There have been a few "good ideas" since
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I might be wrong but I thought Concorde started flying after 1950.
> >>>>>> Though then again the Septics didn't like the noise, or was it a
> >>>>>> classic
> >>>>>> case of "Not Invented Here" syndrome?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It was a fast plane, but a poor design.
> >>>>
> >>>> Not that bad really as it was the first one..
> >>>>
> >>>>> They spent wads of money to
> >>>>> build and maintain them, then junked the entire fleet. It was noisy
> >>>>> and
> >>>>> very fuel inefficient. That forced the fares so high that they weren't
> >>>>> able to compete with better planes from multiple countries.
> >>>>
> >>>> What other supersonic airliners are those then?...
> >>>
> >>> Don't read well, do you? The 747 kicked its butt.
> >>
> >>The 747 goes about 600 mph top whack.
> >>Supersonic means greater than 768 mph so the 747 ain't a supersonic
> >>airliner.
> >
> >I guess that answered my question (you don't read well).
> >
> >The Concorde was not successful.
>
> It was .. for what it did...

Well under a fraction of one percent isn't sucessful. It's nothing
but ego bloat.

== 16 of 20 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 22 2010 5:03 pm
From: "Michael A. Terrell"

><(((°> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 20:57:06 +0100, Phil Hobbs
> <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
>
> > aemeijers wrote:
> >> krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
> >> (snip)
> >>>>> They spent wads of money to
> >>>>> build and maintain them, then junked the entire fleet. It was noisy
> >>>>> and
> >>>>> very fuel inefficient. That forced the fares so high that they
> >>>>> weren't
> >>>>> able to compete with better planes from multiple countries.
> >>>> What other supersonic airliners are those then?...
> >>>
> >>> Don't read well, do you? The 747 kicked its butt.
> >> 747 ain't supersonic. But on a dollar/gallon per passenger mile
> >> basis, it is a whole lot cheaper to run, when anywhere near fully
> >> loaded. In recent years, due to passenger volume being so reduced, a
> >> whole lotta 747s and other jumbos were parked in the desert, in
> >> 'preservation pack' status. Airlines switched to the itty-bitty jets
> >> for many routes. Now that volume is picking up again, some jumbos are
> >> being brought back out of storage. At one point, they were gonna
> >> modernize the 747 fleet, but it will probably never happen, because
> >> Boeing would rather sell new planes, and Airbus is nipping at their
> >> heels. But the long delays in the Boeing Dreamliner rampup can be at
> >> least partially blamed on the airlines getting gun-shy. It costs a lot
> >> of money to keep airplanes with a lot of lifespan left sitting in the
> >> desert. Another air disaster or major fuel cost spike, and there will
> >> be multiple airlines going belly-up.
> >> Supersonics only made sense for civilian use for a very tiny niche
> >> market of rich people and businessmen who had to have face time
> >> someplace far away in a hurry. That niche market got even smaller with
> >> the rise of cheap easily available hi-rez video-conferencing services.
> >> A lot of execs don't travel near as much as they used to. Plus, of
> >> course, with the general economic downturn, there are a lot fewer
> >> executives. Either retired or flipping burgers for somebody else.
> >> Absent some technological leap that allows cheap suborbital flights
> >> for the masses, world travel will be slower and more expensive from
> >> here on out.
> >>
> >
> > Plus the externalities, such as having your windows rattle twice a day
> > (waking the baby, of course) just because some rich nitwit couldn't wait
> > another couple of hours to get to LA. Anyway, rich nitwits save more
> > time than that by buying or renting their own subsonic jet, which goes
> > wherever they want, whenever they want. It's a far more rational
> > solution (if you can call it that).
> >
> > There was also a big outcry at the time about the pollution--apparently
> > folks were worried about damage to the ozone layer or something, due to
> > inefficient engines spewing crap in the stratosphere. I'm not sure
> > whether there was anything to that (there so often isn't, in the
> > environmentalist cosmos), but that and the sonic booms were what got
> > supersonic flight banned.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Phil Hobbs
> >
>
> Just more symptoms on Not Invented Here syndrome.

Yawn. US SS military jets were banned from populated areas long
before the first Concord was pieced together from British and french
landfills.

== 17 of 20 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 22 2010 5:09 pm
From: Grimly Curmudgeon

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> saying something like:

>Concorde got banned from flying supersonic over nearly all land areas.

Sour grapes, caused by 'not invented here' on the part of the Septics.

It used to go supersonic of the south coast of Ireland. Sometimes, if
the air conditions were right, I'd hear a far-off bang and it was some
time before I realised what it was.

== 18 of 20 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 22 2010 5:08 pm
From: "Michael A. Terrell"

Dave wrote:
>
> On 22/08/2010 02:08, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>
> > It was a fast plane, but a poor design.
>
> Fast it was, but poor design NO.

That's your opinion. They were so worried about building the FIRST
commercial SS plane that they cut corners to save time. the result was
an overpriced, underperfoming product that required longer runways and
altered flight paths at existing airports.

> > They spent wads of money to
> > build and maintain them, then junked the entire fleet. It was noisy and
> > very fuel inefficient.
>
> As is any super fast jet. I should know, I spent many years working in
> that environment.

And how many flights were justifed? It wasn't that long ago that it
took months on a ship to ross the Atlantic or Pacific.

> > That forced the fares so high that they weren't
> > able to compete with better planes from multiple countries.
>
> Lots of passengers enjoyed the fact they could spend the day shopping in
> another continent and be home for tea.

And people in hell would enjoy icewater. They might even be the same
people.

== 19 of 20 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 22 2010 5:20 pm
From: aemeijers

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>(snip)
> Yawn. US SS military jets were banned from populated areas long
> before the first Concord was pieced together from British and french
> landfills.

Uh, that was only partially to avoid the bad PR (and damage claims) from
sonic booms. It was mainly to avoid conflict with civil air traffic, and
collateral damage on the ground when one occasionally falls out of the
sky, sometimes at full power.

--
aem sends...

== 20 of 20 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 22 2010 6:18 pm
From: clare@snyder.on.ca

On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 18:13:58 +0100, ><(((°> <nospam@butfish.com>
wrote:

>On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 16:45:08 +0100, krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
><krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 12:01:04 +0100, tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <-NmdnY7Fjv0c5e3RnZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d@earthlink.com>, Michael A.
>>> Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> scribeth thus
>>>>
>>>>> <(((°> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 22:26:53 +0100, <clare@snyder.on.ca> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> > On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 14:46:34 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
>>>>> > <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Dave wrote:
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> On 21/08/2010 03:59, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>>>>> >>> >
>>>>> >>> > geoff wrote:
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> > That's a very good example of why most people with brains
>>>>> left
>>>>> >>> Europe
>>>>> >>> > for 'The new World'.
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> So how come Britain made a better nuclear bomb than the New
>>>>> World? And
>>>>> >>> the New World wanted as much detail of our superior technology as
>>>>> they
>>>>> >>> could get?
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> What superior technology? Lucas?
>>>>> > No "superior technology" has come out of GB since about 1950. - and
>>>>> > that may be stretchng it. There have been a few "good ideas" since
>>>>>
>>>>> I might be wrong but I thought Concorde started flying after 1950.
>>>>> Though then again the Septics didn't like the noise, or was it a
>>>>> classic
>>>>> case of "Not Invented Here" syndrome?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It was a fast plane, but a poor design.
>>>
>>> Not that bad really as it was the first one..
>>>
>>>> They spent wads of money to
>>>> build and maintain them, then junked the entire fleet. It was noisy
>>>> and
>>>> very fuel inefficient. That forced the fares so high that they weren't
>>>> able to compete with better planes from multiple countries.
>>>
>>> What other supersonic airliners are those then?...
>>
>> Don't read well, do you? The 747 kicked its butt.
>
>The 747 goes about 600 mph top whack.
>Supersonic means greater than 768 mph so the 747 ain't a supersonic
>airliner.
>
>You might have a military plane faster but you haven't got a passenger
>airliner faster.
The 747 (on a bad day) moves more passenger-miles per hour on less
than 1/4 the lbs of fuel per passenger mile than the concorde could
dream of on it's best day

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Backlight Dummy Load???
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/269588fe600f676f?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 22 2010 11:58 am
From: whit3rd

On Aug 22, 9:42 am, mike <spam...@go.com> wrote:
> I pick up free lcd monitors at garage sales and fix 'em.
> Biggest problem is getting them to run while you have 'em
> disassembled.

> Would be much easier if I didn't have to hook up the backlights.
> But running the inverter with out a load is surely a BIG STRESS
> on the transformers and maybe the driver.

> I have a bunch of laptop backlights, but I'm afraid to use them
> as load for bigger monitors.  Big current difference.

I've just put a cheapo, relatively large lamp on a scavenged
connector (with lots of insulation, of course; there's kilovolts
there).
JKL made a bunch of inverters available standalone, and a few
lamps, and there were only a few HV connector types we
had to deal with, so it was possible to test lamps with known-good
inverters, and inverters with known-good lamps.

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 22 2010 2:56 pm
From: Grant

On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 09:42:28 -0700, mike <spamme0@go.com> wrote:

>I pick up free lcd monitors at garage sales and fix 'em.
>Biggest problem is getting them to run while you have 'em
>disassembled.
>Seems as if they TRY to make it hard to run 'em.
>
>Would be much easier if I didn't have to hook up the backlights.
>But running the inverter with out a load is surely a BIG STRESS
>on the transformers and maybe the driver.
>
>What's a good dummy load that I can put on the connections to keep
>the voltage spikes from arcing/shorting the transformer secondary?
>The lamp load is decidedly nonlinear. And there's several watts to
>dissipate.
>
>Cutting the power supply trace to the inverter works, as long as the
>problem isn't in the inverter supply, but it's
>kinda brute force.

Some turn off if the backlight not running, too. Backlight CCFL is run
on constant current (there's a little rectifier/smoother in the HV return
lead), so perhaps a smallish value power resistor in series with a 400V
or so TVS diode (bidirectional or two unis in inverse series) would be
a nice load? Say 470R to 2k2 HV resistor + TVS?
>
>I have a bunch of laptop backlights, but I'm afraid to use them
>as load for bigger monitors. Big current difference.

Given that the HV is current regulated, maybe they run at similar
currents? Longer tubes would have higher voltage? Tube diameter
seems the same (tiny! 3mm?) on the few I've come across. I see
two in parallel on larger screens rather than one CCFL with a
larger diameter.
>
>Anybody successfully constructed a backlight proxy (dummy load)?
>Explanation?

Not tried it (yet), but what I wrote above seems logical start point,
try it on what spares you have now?

Depends on what the fault is, for how far I'm willing to dismantle
an LCD, usually obviously stressed power supply caps, or blown CCFL
inverter needing replacement tank cap (thanks to Internet goodness
for that fix :) I've been able to connect CCFLs and all for testing
before reassembly. Haven't felt the need yet for dummy CCFL.

My repair success rate is 5 1/2 of 7.

The half working one is usable but has odd shimmering pixel effect
in one corner no one here could help with at the time. Here's the
web page in case somebody has seen the effect, but missed my first
post: http://grrr.id.au/odd-lcd/ I didn't dismantle further because
the LCD is usable as it is, hasn't got worse over last few months.
I'd have another try if I received some positive information, or get
another screen so it matters less if I bust this one on further
dismantling. I'm wary of breaking the film to glass connections by
taking the metal frame off. My working space is a little cramped.

Grant.

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 22 2010 3:26 pm
From: Sjouke Burry

mike wrote:
> I pick up free lcd monitors at garage sales and fix 'em.
> Biggest problem is getting them to run while you have 'em
> disassembled.
> Seems as if they TRY to make it hard to run 'em.
>
> Would be much easier if I didn't have to hook up the backlights.
> But running the inverter with out a load is surely a BIG STRESS
> on the transformers and maybe the driver.
>
> What's a good dummy load that I can put on the connections to keep
> the voltage spikes from arcing/shorting the transformer secondary?
> The lamp load is decidedly nonlinear. And there's several watts to
> dissipate.
>
> Cutting the power supply trace to the inverter works, as long as the
> problem isn't in the inverter supply, but it's
> kinda brute force.
>
> I have a bunch of laptop backlights, but I'm afraid to use them
> as load for bigger monitors. Big current difference.
>
> Anybody successfully constructed a backlight proxy (dummy load)?
> Explanation?
>
> Thanks, mike
Why not borrow two tubes from a broken screen, mount them in a box,
and use them as ballast?

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 22 2010 5:21 pm
From: Grant

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 00:26:57 +0200, Sjouke Burry <burrynulnulfour@ppllaanneett.nnll> wrote:

>mike wrote:
>> I pick up free lcd monitors at garage sales and fix 'em.
>> Biggest problem is getting them to run while you have 'em
>> disassembled.
>> Seems as if they TRY to make it hard to run 'em.
>>
>> Would be much easier if I didn't have to hook up the backlights.
>> But running the inverter with out a load is surely a BIG STRESS
>> on the transformers and maybe the driver.
>>
>> What's a good dummy load that I can put on the connections to keep
>> the voltage spikes from arcing/shorting the transformer secondary?
>> The lamp load is decidedly nonlinear. And there's several watts to
>> dissipate.
>>
>> Cutting the power supply trace to the inverter works, as long as the
>> problem isn't in the inverter supply, but it's
>> kinda brute force.
>>
>> I have a bunch of laptop backlights, but I'm afraid to use them
>> as load for bigger monitors. Big current difference.
>>
>> Anybody successfully constructed a backlight proxy (dummy load)?
>> Explanation?
>>
>> Thanks, mike
>Why not borrow two tubes from a broken screen, mount them in a box,
>and use them as ballast?

Make a small lightbox for checking PCB prints, useful too ;)

Grant.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Toshiba lcd tv
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/b76db16fe68b702a?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 22 2010 5:42 pm
From: Tony Matt

John T. wrote:
> Does anyone know where I can get the firmware update for a Toshiba 19DV665DB
> lcd tv ? It has the well known sound fault, which I'm told can be fixed with
> the upgrade. I've checked the Toshiba website, but there are no updates for
> the DV series tv's. I believe the 22" version has the same fault.

The AVS Forum, maybe?
www.avsforum.com

TM

==============================================================================

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sci.electronics.repair"
group.

To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair?hl=en

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sci.electronics.repair+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/subscribe?hl=en

To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com

==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en