sci.electronics.repair@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

* TVs compatible, from one continent to the next?? - 18 messages, 5 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/38d677af192b8653?hl=en
* OT--Actual elecytronics repair question - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/1c7563aead5e20a6?hl=en
* [[[[ bikini girls naked - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/24dfc84b422c6c34?hl=en
* Repair older model Leitz HR9 laminator for toner transfer purpose - 1
messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/1af14443a6426fc9?hl=en
* sceinceis a our scene - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/567f7062e4c52355?hl=en
* - 1 message, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/?hl=en

==============================================================================
TOPIC: TVs compatible, from one continent to the next??
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/38d677af192b8653?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 18 ==
Date: Wed, Jan 12 2011 6:26 am
From: "Dave Plowman (News)"

In article <igk8l8$m39$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
William Sommerwerck <grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote:
> > Don't think anyone with sense claims any of these are
> > universally superior. Each had merits and de-merits.
> > Think it goes something like this:-

> > NTSC gives the best pictures in the studio.
> > SECAM records best.
> > PAL transmits best.

> #1 is meaningless, because "in the studio", you can display RGB directly,
> without encoding.

It would be a very stupid studio that did so if it were intended for
analogue transmission.

--
*Age is a very high price to pay for maturity.

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

== 2 of 18 ==
Date: Wed, Jan 12 2011 6:29 am
From: "Dave Plowman (News)"

In article <igkajs$blp$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
William Sommerwerck <grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote:
> By the way... PAL has no more /horizontal/ resolution than NTSC. (The
> bandwidth/line is about the same.) The extra hundred scanning lines is
> nice, but the eye judges resolution more by horizontal resolution.

The vertical/horizontal resolution relationship is correct with PAL 625
lines. Unless US eyes differ from the rest of the world.

--
*Be more or less specific *

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

== 3 of 18 ==
Date: Wed, Jan 12 2011 6:44 am
From: "Geoffrey S. Mendelson"

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> If 30 fps is needed for 'less blurring in live action' how come Hollywood
> managed at 24 fps for the large screen?

Viewing distance. Large screens are watched much farther away than TVs.

Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson N3OWJ/4X1GM
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to misquote it.

== 4 of 18 ==
Date: Wed, Jan 12 2011 6:49 am
From: "Dave Plowman (News)"

In article <slrniiqh2b.5ne.gsm@cable.mendelson.com>,
Geoffrey S. Mendelson <gsm@mendelson.com> wrote:
> The political reason was to keep the UK electronics companies in work, to
> avoid cheap sets made in much larger quantities in the US.

When colour started in the UK, it was only on one UHF channel out of 3.
The other two were still 405 line VHF. So the first colour sets were dual
standard.

Given the US never attempted to make sets to the UK mono standard of 405
lines - which pre-dated any US one - just why do you think they'd have
been interested in any other UK market? A few years later, UK colour sets
were UHF only when the other channels went colour.

I also doubt any US manufactured set would have been cheaper in the UK
after transport and setting up a service/dealer network, etc. US cars, for
example, have never been competitive here, price wise.

Your idea that the whole world should adopt US standards regardless of
local conditions was just to protect their home industries says much.
It's the reason why the far east has taken over the manufacture of such
things. They tend to make what people want, rather than what the
manufacturers think they should have. And the UK is equally as guilty.

--
*When the chips are down, the buffalo is empty*

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

== 5 of 18 ==
Date: Wed, Jan 12 2011 7:05 am
From: "Dave Plowman (News)"

In article <slrniirfga.fvg.gsm@cable.mendelson.com>,
Geoffrey S. Mendelson <gsm@mendelson.com> wrote:
> > If 30 fps is needed for 'less blurring in live action' how come
> > Hollywood managed at 24 fps for the large screen?

> Viewing distance. Large screens are watched much farther away than TVs.

I take it light blurs with distance, then?

Does that make large screen TVs ok at 25 fps?

--
*Income tax service - We've got what it takes to take what you've got.

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

== 6 of 18 ==
Date: Wed, Jan 12 2011 7:16 am
From: "William Sommerwerck"

>>> Don't think anyone with sense claims any of these are
>>> universally superior. Each had merits and de-merits.
>>> Think it goes something like this:-

>>> NTSC gives the best pictures in the studio.
>>> SECAM records best.
>>> PAL transmits best.

>> #1 is meaningless, because "in the studio", you can display
>> RGB directly,without encoding.

> It would be a very stupid studio that did so if it were intended
> for analogue transmission.

How about "under ideal conditions"?

== 7 of 18 ==
Date: Wed, Jan 12 2011 7:49 am
From: "Geoffrey S. Mendelson"

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> When colour started in the UK, it was only on one UHF channel out of 3.
> The other two were still 405 line VHF. So the first colour sets were dual
> standard.

Where they? I have never seen a dual standard (405/625) line TV set on a
website, listed on various collectors pages, nor do any of the people who
have video tours of their 405 line TV collections on youtube have any.

I'm not saying they did not exist, but if they did, people are going to a lot
of trouble to omit them. You'd figure the guy who has one of the
last 405 line TV sets (the model, not the actual set) and proudly shows it,
would have one of the first 405/625 sets too.

> Given the US never attempted to make sets to the UK mono standard of 405
> lines - which pre-dated any US one - just why do you think they'd have
> been interested in any other UK market? A few years later, UK colour sets
> were UHF only when the other channels went colour.

Well, they would not. But in 1956 back when the UK was still stuck in the
1930's, you could buy a US color TV off the salesroom floor. If the BBC wanted
to go to color, they could of just adopted the US system, and let people
import US sets with transformers until one with 240 volt power supplies
became available.

BTW, what you said about 405/625 line sets in general was not true, BBC one
was a dual service, the second BBC channel was never 405. It started in
1963, two years before there were color broadcasts.

As for tuners, ALL US sets had UHF tuners by the summer of 1964.

> I also doubt any US manufactured set would have been cheaper in the UK
> after transport and setting up a service/dealer network, etc. US cars, for
> example, have never been competitive here, price wise.

Bad example. UK cars are mirror images of US ones, the only difference
between an NTSC set receiveing NTSC signals in the UK versus the US was the
power line voltage. An external transformer would have been around $25, which
on a $1,000 item was trivial.

We've long since established that by 1956 the power line frequency did
not matter.

> Your idea that the whole world should adopt US standards regardless of
> local conditions was just to protect their home industries says much.

WTF? Now you are projecting. Since PAL is the original NTSC standard as
proposed, the UK had no TV network to speak of (just left overs from the
1930's), why not adpot an off the shelf technology that's already in use.

People wanted color TVs in 1956, they did not want a british system with
little or no benefit except that it would take nine years before the
first broadcast.

In the 1950's the concept of COTS (commerical off the shelf technology) did not
exist and I'm not sure it has ever existed at the BBC. To be blunt, if the
BBC had adopted the RCA system 100%, there would have been color TV in the
UK in 1957.

So what real benefit did PAL provide?

> It's the reason why the far east has taken over the manufacture of such
> things. They tend to make what people want, rather than what the
> manufacturers think they should have.

Actually they did not. They started making what they wanted you to buy, but
at a price so low you could afford to buy it and live with the missing features.

Look at VHS. VHS forced out all the other systems because the EU was going to
impose VCR quotas. To prevent it, the Japanese manufacturers, except for Sony
stopped making PAL and SECAM VCRs in favor of NTSC ones. They literally sold
the NTSC ones BELLOW COST just to keep the factories running.
(look up "dumping" and VCR).

People did not want VHS VCRs, they wanted BETAMAX VCRs. But when the equivalent
VHS VCR was on sale for half of a Sony, they bought them anyway.

Geoff.
--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson N3OWJ/4X1GM
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to misquote it.

== 8 of 18 ==
Date: Wed, Jan 12 2011 7:27 am
From: "Dave Plowman (News)"

In article <igkgko$iuc$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
William Sommerwerck <grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote:
> > It would be a very stupid studio that did so if it were intended
> > for analogue transmission.

> How about "under ideal conditions"?

Have you ever worked in TV production? There are very good reasons why you
wouldn't watch RGB in the studio if it is to be encoded later.

--
*A boiled egg is hard to beat*

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

== 9 of 18 ==
Date: Wed, Jan 12 2011 10:48 am
From: "Michael A. Terrell"

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:
>
> In article <igk8l8$m39$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
> William Sommerwerck <grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > Don't think anyone with sense claims any of these are
> > > universally superior. Each had merits and de-merits.
> > > Think it goes something like this:-
>
> > > NTSC gives the best pictures in the studio.
> > > SECAM records best.
> > > PAL transmits best.
>
> > #1 is meaningless, because "in the studio", you can display RGB directly,
> > without encoding.
>
> It would be a very stupid studio that did so if it were intended for
> analogue transmission.

It would be very stupid to make a statement like that when you know
nothing of how the video was processed. Some video processing systems
could use either composite or RGB+Sync, but decoding the video first
added more timing errors that had to be corrected elsewhere in the
system.

--
You can't fix stupid. You can't even put a band-aid on it, because it's
Teflon coated.

== 10 of 18 ==
Date: Wed, Jan 12 2011 10:49 am
From: "Michael A. Terrell"

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:
>
> In article <igkgko$iuc$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
> William Sommerwerck <grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > It would be a very stupid studio that did so if it were intended
> > > for analogue transmission.
>
> > How about "under ideal conditions"?
>
> Have you ever worked in TV production? There are very good reasons why you
> wouldn't watch RGB in the studio if it is to be encoded later.

Really. Name ONE that you didn't pull out of your ass.

--
You can't fix stupid. You can't even put a band-aid on it, because it's
Teflon coated.

== 11 of 18 ==
Date: Wed, Jan 12 2011 10:52 am
From: "Michael A. Terrell"

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:
>
> In article <yNqdnS4xfenEyLDQnZ2dnUVZ_tqdnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
> Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > > Back in 1970 I took course "TV production" in my Senior year.
> > > We had a nice 1" tape deck and a mixer/fader console along with
> > > two dolly mounted cameras.
> > >
> > > By 1971, the students had trahed enough of the equipment, so
> > > that they were using a 1/2" Sone deck and hand helds on tripods.
> > >
> > > Sigh, what a waste of studio grade gear.
>
> > No kidding. One of the local high schools gets new equipment about
> > every other year when they need to learn on beat up old junk.
>
> Big snag with pro gear at one time was it needed pros to set it up and
> maintain it. And then there was the size.

What are you babbling about, now?

--
You can't fix stupid. You can't even put a band-aid on it, because it's
Teflon coated.

== 12 of 18 ==
Date: Wed, Jan 12 2011 10:54 am
From: "Dave Plowman (News)"

In article <slrniirj8q.gre.gsm@cable.mendelson.com>,
Geoffrey S. Mendelson <gsm@mendelson.com> wrote:
> > When colour started in the UK, it was only on one UHF channel out of
> > 3. The other two were still 405 line VHF. So the first colour sets
> > were dual standard.

> Where they? I have never seen a dual standard (405/625) line TV set on a
> website, listed on various collectors pages, nor do any of the people who
> have video tours of their 405 line TV collections on youtube have any.

> I'm not saying they did not exist, but if they did, people are going to
> a lot of trouble to omit them. You'd figure the guy who has one of the
> last 405 line TV sets (the model, not the actual set) and proudly shows
> it, would have one of the first 405/625 sets too.

You can't have looked very hard. Dual standard sets - both colour and
monochrome - were plentiful at one time.

> > Given the US never attempted to make sets to the UK mono standard of
> > 405 lines - which pre-dated any US one - just why do you think they'd
> > have been interested in any other UK market? A few years later, UK
> > colour sets were UHF only when the other channels went colour.

> Well, they would not. But in 1956 back when the UK was still stuck in
> the 1930's, you could buy a US color TV off the salesroom floor.

Some could - if they had the money.

> If the
> BBC wanted to go to color, they could of just adopted the US system, and
> let people import US sets with transformers until one with 240 volt
> power supplies became available.

If the US makers wanted to sell sets in the UK they could have made them
to UK spec. But your strange logic seems against this.

> BTW, what you said about 405/625 line sets in general was not true, BBC
> one was a dual service, the second BBC channel was never 405. It started
> in 1963, two years before there were color broadcasts.

BBC 2 started off as UHF 625 mono. Because it was planned to start colour
there in the future. BBC1 and ITV were 405 (VHF) only until they too went
colour on UHF.

> As for tuners, ALL US sets had UHF tuners by the summer of 1964.

I presume you mean all new ones?

> > I also doubt any US manufactured set would have been cheaper in the UK
> > after transport and setting up a service/dealer network, etc. US cars,
> > for example, have never been competitive here, price wise.

> Bad example. UK cars are mirror images of US ones,

Mirror image? Have you ever looked at the design of a car? UK makers
managed to produce pretty well every model in RHD and LHD. As did just
about every other in the world. Another example of 'take what you get or
leave it'?

> the only difference between an NTSC set receiveing NTSC signals in the
> UK versus the US was the power line voltage. An external transformer
> would have been around $25, which on a $1,000 item was trivial.

And even more trivial and cheaper to make a new power supply?

> We've long since established that by 1956 the power line frequency did
> not matter.

It *can* matter to power supplies.

> > Your idea that the whole world should adopt US standards regardless of
> > local conditions was just to protect their home industries says much.

> WTF? Now you are projecting. Since PAL is the original NTSC standard as
> proposed, the UK had no TV network to speak of (just left overs from the
> 1930's), why not adpot an off the shelf technology that's already in use.

Because it was so poor. As anyone who had seen the actual results in the
'50s would remember...

> People wanted color TVs in 1956, they did not want a british system with
> little or no benefit except that it would take nine years before the
> first broadcast.

Where did I ever say the US should have used UK technology? It's you who
are saying the reverse.

> In the 1950's the concept of COTS (commerical off the shelf technology)
> did not exist and I'm not sure it has ever existed at the BBC. To be
> blunt, if the BBC had adopted the RCA system 100%, there would have been
> color TV in the UK in 1957.

And we'd have been saddled with an inferior system relying on imported
equipment. Those coffins of cameras not suited to UK production methods.

> So what real benefit did PAL provide?

The best TV service in the world.

> > It's the reason why the far east has taken over the manufacture of such
> > things. They tend to make what people want, rather than what the
> > manufacturers think they should have.

> Actually they did not. They started making what they wanted you to buy,
> but at a price so low you could afford to buy it and live with the
> missing features.

> Look at VHS. VHS forced out all the other systems because the EU was
> going to impose VCR quotas. To prevent it, the Japanese manufacturers,
> except for Sony stopped making PAL and SECAM VCRs in favor of NTSC ones.

JVC cornered the VCR rental market with VHS. But you could buy a variety
of makes including Sony BetaMax. At the same time as the Philips VCC
system. VHS was the most popular system for all the wrong reasons - as
elsewhere.

> They literally sold the NTSC ones BELLOW COST just to keep the factories
> running. (look up "dumping" and VCR).

> People did not want VHS VCRs, they wanted BETAMAX VCRs. But when the
> equivalent VHS VCR was on sale for half of a Sony, they bought them
> anyway.

So why didn't your manufactures with that vast economy of scale compete?
You found the money to put man on the moon but couldn't make a domestic
VCR. Even with all the expertise of Ampex.

--
*It ain't the size, it's... er... no, it IS ..the size.

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

== 13 of 18 ==
Date: Wed, Jan 12 2011 11:05 am
From: "Michael A. Terrell"

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:
>
> In article <ArWdnX-ND8EQnLDQnZ2dnUVZ_tydnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
> Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > > So why the mask on the monitors if 'proper camera work made sure that
> > > the active portion of any image was properly framed'? Cameramen not
> > > trusted?
>
> > maybe on your planet. A cameraman has a lit of things to pay
> > attention to. The lines on his monitor make it easy to frame the shot.
> > Not that you would know.
>
> Can you make up your mind if you're talking about what a camera has
> available on the viewfinder or what you'd find on a control room monitor?
> > >
> > > Only time I saw an electronic mask displayed on a production control
> > > room monitor was when things were destined for 16mm telerecording only.
> > >
> > > > > And why would the engineer in charge of the actual pictures care
> > > > > about home overscan? That would be left to the production side.
> > >
> > > Notice you've omitted to answer this...
>
> > No matter what answer yo got you would still pull out a ruler to
> > measure yor dick so there was no reason to give you the pleasure.
>
> Seems to me you were a 'back room boy' with no experience of production.
> Gawd help us if you were responsible for providing the facilities others
> had to work round.

I produced & directed a live newscast for a year in '73 & 74 at Ft.
Greely, AK.

I built a 1.3 MW EIRP UHF TV station on Ch. 58 in Destin Fl.,
starting with an empty building.

I've run studio cameras, loaded 16 mm film and 35 mm slides for
actualities between switching camera shots in master control.

I've climbed TV broadcast towers and built a remote tower light
monitor that I designed. It met FCC and FAA requirements. I had 14
hours to design, build and install the equipment in two cities to
monitor the tower lights at a STL relay point.

I've built mobile production vans, and installed the first emergency
alert system on any CATV system on any US military base.

I repaired any and everything that needed it at three different
stations.

I installed PBX and telethon phone systems.

I installed and repaired C-band microwave equipment, along with 7 &
11 GHz STL equipment

A good Broadcast Engineer can do any job that's required. What have
you done, other than post bullshit? What was the equivalent of the FCC
First Phone license that was required to be a broadcast Engineer and did
you have it?

--
You can't fix stupid. You can't even put a band-aid on it, because it's
Teflon coated.

== 14 of 18 ==
Date: Wed, Jan 12 2011 11:11 am
From: "Michael A. Terrell"

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:
>
> In article <x_ednSj9__42nrDQnZ2dnUVZ_s6dnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
> Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > > You appear only to have heard of RCA cameras.
>
> > Sigh. You appear to be an idiot. RCA & GE made most of the studio
> > cameras in the US.
>
> I don't live in the US.

And I thank God for that.

> > A few stations got screwed when they bought Philips
> > cameras that had no factory support and few spare parts.
>
> Pretty well the same as the few UK companies that bought RCA, then.

Really? You could get almost any part for RCA equipment, even on 40
year old equipment. It wasn't cheap, but it was availible, and a lot of
it could be delivered overnight. The first thing Philips did was tell
the US scustomers that there were no spare camera cables, no bulk cable,
and no new connectors to repair the flimsy crap that connected the
cameras to the CCUs.

> Well, I'm trying to think of a US broadcaster that designed much of its
> own equipment. If you want to debate the BBC and 'state of the art'.

Sigh. Your ignorance is amazing. RCA & GE owned TV networks. Take
a guess who designed and built their equipment?

> > > Can you name a broadcast use for a single tube colour camera? Apart
> > > from stunt stuff where it would be destroyed.
>
> > Yes they were used for ENG before color CCD cameras were availible.
>
> I'm talking about proper broadcasting, not news. News will use domestic
> shot pictures if it suits them. Please stick to top end.

ENG was substanard at the BBC? Figures.

> > > > If you consider 2" Ampex industrial video, you might argue. The
> > > > mobile production units were several tractor trailers full, and they
> > > > had just bought the first Tektronix U-matic decks built.
> > >
> > > U-matic? Only ever used for news stuff here. And office viewing before
> > > VHS.
> > >
> > > 1" C Format ruled until the arrival of Beta SP and MII.
>
> > So, you used 2" until the other formats were availible?
>
> Which part of 1" C format don't you understand?

What don't you understand? 2" predated all of the other formats.

> > Umatic was
> > second generation video for use in classrooms, dubbed from the broadcast
> > grade masters. Long beofre VHS or any beta crap was availible. I used
> > 1" Sony at WACX in orlando for the master edit suit. OTOH, I had 13
> > Sony U-Matics at the transmitter site for the LaCarte Video automation
> > system. WACX had better video quality than most of the other stations
> > in the market. The worst used Beta and it was obvious.
>
> Seems to me you know little about broadcast standards.

Seems to me that you don't know anything abot US brodacsting or any
of the various standards involved.

--
You can't fix stupid. You can't even put a band-aid on it, because it's
Teflon coated.

== 15 of 18 ==
Date: Wed, Jan 12 2011 11:13 am
From: "William Sommerwerck"

>>> It would be a very stupid studio that did so
>>> if it were intended for analogue transmission.

>> How about "under ideal conditions"?

> Have you ever worked in TV production? There are very
> good reasons why you wouldn't watch RGB in the studio
> if it is to be encoded later.

No, but I understood what you were getting at. You have to see the image as
the consumer will see it.

== 16 of 18 ==
Date: Wed, Jan 12 2011 11:14 am
From: "Michael A. Terrell"

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:
>
> I wonder just how available were the delay lines needed when NTSC was
> introduced? They were quite an expensive component years later.

NTSC delay lines for TV sets were about $3 for replacments in the mid
'60s. I only saw one open delay line and one with physical damage in
40+ years. The open delay line removed the luminanve signal, leaving
only moving colored splotches on a black screen.

--
You can't fix stupid. You can't even put a band-aid on it, because it's
Teflon coated.

== 17 of 18 ==
Date: Wed, Jan 12 2011 11:16 am
From: "Michael A. Terrell"

William Sommerwerck wrote:
>
> >>> It would be a very stupid studio that did so
> >>> if it were intended for analogue transmission.
>
> >> How about "under ideal conditions"?
>
> > Have you ever worked in TV production? There are very
> > good reasons why you wouldn't watch RGB in the studio
> > if it is to be encoded later.
>
> No, but I understood what you were getting at. You have to see the image as
> the consumer will see it.

Which is what the master monitors are for, after all the video
processing and routing.

--
You can't fix stupid. You can't even put a band-aid on it, because it's
Teflon coated.

== 18 of 18 ==
Date: Wed, Jan 12 2011 12:27 pm
From: Meat Plow

On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 14:14:25 -0500, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

> "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:
>>
>> I wonder just how available were the delay lines needed when NTSC was
>> introduced? They were quite an expensive component years later.
>
>
> NTSC delay lines for TV sets were about $3 for replacments in the mid
> '60s. I only saw one open delay line and one with physical damage in
> 40+ years. The open delay line removed the luminanve signal, leaving
> only moving colored splotches on a black screen.

I saw 1 open delay line. In an RCA tube set back in 1980. I might have
paid less than 10 bucks for it. Never saw another failed.

--
Live Fast, Die Young and Leave a Pretty Corpse

==============================================================================
TOPIC: OT--Actual elecytronics repair question
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/1c7563aead5e20a6?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Jan 12 2011 6:58 am
From: PeterD

On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 05:16:56 -0500, JW <none@dev.null> wrote:

>On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 15:01:48 -0500 PeterD <peter2@hipson.net> wrote in
>Message id: <7mdpi61943k39741mqucorq3evbevh5nbf@4ax.com>:
>
>...
>>
>>Regarless the authors have seen similar occurances where turn on
>>failures were related to a necessary time constant that was not
>>required on turn off phases. Such a time constant was not present as
>>the switch contacts seemed to fail, such as might happen after many
>>years of continious use.
>
>I just ran the ClueMeter over your last post, Peter, and I'm sad
>to say the reading was...
>

There is likely a time constant to prevent undesired turn-ons which is
why the symptoms appear on only with on and not off. That's why the
last paragraph was important! <g>

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Jan 12 2011 12:21 pm
From: Meat Plow

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 20:29:36 -0800, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

> On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 19:31:52 +0000 (UTC), Meat Plow <mhywatt@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Yaesu VX-5R tri-band hand held. Momentary contact power on/off button.
>
> I have the same radio. Mine is the somewhat later v1.1.
>
>>Recently I have to push several
>>times on this rubber on/off button to get the radio to come on.
>
> Yep. I had the same problem about a year ago. When I opened the radio,
> I found wet and greasy goo around most of the keypad buttons. My guess
> is a mixture to condensed bad breath and exuded rubber plasticizer
> molded into the rubber. I cleaned up the mess with alcohol and it's
> been fine ever since.
>
>>But it
>>always takes just one touch to turn it off.
>
> Debounce circuit? I do have to hold the on/off a bit longer to turn it
> on than to turn it off. My guess is about a full second to turn it on,
> and just a tap to turn it off.
>
>>And the radio works fine
>>otherwise including all the other buttons. Just have to play around
>>pressing the button maybe three/four/five times. Sometimes it powers on
>>when pressed once! But always shuts off with just one easy push. This
>>indicates to me that it's not a problem with button contact but rather a
>>microprocessor problem.
>
> Good logic, but without knowing the exact failure mechanism, it might be
> problematic. If this is a deteriorating situation, where it worked
> normally in the distant past, I would tend to suspect that something has
> deteriorated rather than failed.
>
> If not, there's the possibility of firmware problems, which a total
> reset and reload from the programming software might fix. I had some
> problems with VX-5 Commander:
> <http://www.kc8unj.com>
> and ended up buying the official Yaesu software (by RT Systems)
> <http://www.rtsystemsinc.com>
>
>>Discuss.
>
> Methinks a frizbee is cheaper than throwing a discus around.

Heh. I have the VX-5 software from RT and the data cable. So a reset then
reload might not be a bad idea. I've also had grounding problems with
this radio. Makes the audio howl when you turn it up past 50% on 70
centimeters. Main component board depends on lands around screw holes and
the aluminum chassis is part of the ground. An occasional loose/tight of
the chassis screws seems to cure it for a year or so.

Other than this, the radio has worked well, the batter has held up
remarkably and the audio is robust. I also have a dual band FT-60. Rock
solid radio, very loud audio with little distortion. Bought it back in
2006 from AES. They had a special on the radio and drop charger that I
couldn't resist. I bought a Diamond SRH320A antenna for it. I've worked
repeaters 50 miles away outdoors on 2 meters with that HT.

--
Live Fast, Die Young and Leave a Pretty Corpse

==============================================================================
TOPIC: [[[[ bikini girls naked
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/24dfc84b422c6c34?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Jan 12 2011 9:14 am
From: PRB Ramesh

http://www.photovediodating.com
Free mobile software downloads
http://www.celebsimzs.com

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Repair older model Leitz HR9 laminator for toner transfer purpose
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/1af14443a6426fc9?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Jan 12 2011 9:51 am
From: Svenn Are Bjerkem

Hi,
I found a junked Leitz HR9 laminator and decided to give it a try to
see if I can fix it for toner transfer. I could buy a new consumer
type or use an iron, but this used to be a high-end laminator with
adjustable temperature and hot rollers so I decided to test it.

I plugged it and it got hot and when the ready lamp lit up, I tried to
feed it with a plain sheet of paper. The paper did not feed and that
is probably why it landed in the junk. I opened it to see if there
were some kind of paper sensor or anything. Nice mechanics and a
control PCB was all I found on first inspection. I googled a bit for
the users manual to see how it was supposed to be used, and all I
found was related to a newer model of HR9 with fixed temperature and
variable speed, mine seems to have fixed speed and adjustable
temperature. I did not find out if the feed starts automatically when
proper heat has been reached or if it starts when the paper is
actually injected.

Since there is no obvious paper detection, I wonder how laminators
really work. The motor is a 220V type and I don't see any obvious
triacs or relays on the PCB control board at first glance so I would
guess the feed should start when power is turned on. When I adjust the
temperature, the ready light will go off until the temperature is
right, so there must be some temperature sensing an control in there.
I'll do some more investigation on my own, but maybe somebody here
happen to know something about the older HR9 which could be of help.
Looks like a nice device for toner transfer, if I can only get it to
work.

Kind regards,
--
Svenn

==============================================================================
TOPIC: sceinceis a our scene
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/567f7062e4c52355?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Jan 12 2011 10:16 am
From: kaniSH

http://123maza.com/35/power845

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

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

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