sci.electronics.repair@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

* CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors - 14 messages, 8 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/4b33f31f667954a0?hl=en
* Homebrew emergency power system - advice needed please - 1 messages, 1
author
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/d07d79e0d8a0cf60?hl=en
* TL064 in PV 212 Deuce, VT Series, 1980 - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/335a27fd0c57212f?hl=en
* Alliance U100 antenna rotor - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/d0231afb599de425?hl=en
* Need help with switching power supply repair - 5 messages, 5 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/efc81d21dede85df?hl=en
* Why is there a thermistor in the power door lock circuit. - 2 messages, 2
authors
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/c6bd6f6fca427310?hl=en

==============================================================================
TOPIC: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/4b33f31f667954a0?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 14 ==
Date: Wed, Sep 21 2011 9:47 am
From: "Ian Field"

This may be of help:

http://www.pavouk.org/hw/lamp/en_index.html

http://www.nxp.com/documents/application_note/AN00048.pdf

http://www.en-genius.net/includes/files/col_081307.pdf

== 2 of 14 ==
Date: Wed, Sep 21 2011 10:07 am
From: "Wild_Bill"

You really are a blue ribbon simpleton, Trev.

When computers were being introduced for home use, other forms of
communication and/or creativity weren't banned.

I recall the "proposed" huge benefits of widespread computer use were going
to include:

-dramatically reduce paper usage and eliminate the necessity of an infinite
number of forms.
Then eveyone started buying printers for every reason imaginable, and using
computers to create and generate more forms.
Products with no real value.. phone books, magazines, catalogs.. still
paper, although many are digitized.

-reduce the size of government since there wouldn't be a need for as many
people to move around all those forms that would no longer be paper.
Didn't see that happen either.

-records will be more secure.
Hogwash.. after many disasters, there are reports of lost records which
aren't archived elsewhere.

Computers have increased corporate profits, but have done little to make
everyday life more comfortable or convenient for the people inhabiting the
planet.
Well, then there are the smart people that create a letterhead and a
worthless organization based upon their own misguided adgendas, to leech
money from others for a good cause.

-Make much more effective the use of our time (don't care for the "save
time" hoax, kinda like products that pay for themselves).
Yet everywhere people need to get in a line for a purchase or service, there
are still always lines and peope waiting.
Daily encounters with computers aren't really faster and more efficient,
they're actually more complicated.

You keep yapping about silicon, yet there are no reasons people die from
silicon.

Mercury, gallium arsenide and other toxic elements are actually contained
within new lighting technologies, but not in incandescent lamps.
Maybe you should start yapping about argon.

You might actually believe that "regulators ensure that the pollution
created is dealt with appropriately".
This is partially true, and generally always after the pollution has taken
place (often for a long time without detection), after the fact, and the
cleanup costs are generally always put on the citizens. The fines are
generally only symbolic.

You seem to think that someone should be impressed with the dozen-or-so
lighting devices you've commented on.
Your experience (real or not) is completely insignificant in the lighting
industry which includes hundreds of millions/billions of lighting devices
sold every year.

The incidence of failure of products from China is higher than it's ever
been for many of the people alive today. Many of these products don't even
function when new.
The race to the bottom as far as product quality goes, is based upon greed.
Very few products are manufactured today that are intended to last for 10
years, and that means very few consumer electronic devices.. of which many
don't last 2 years.

What this means is that your 10 year old LED example isn't even relative in
today's manufacturing practices.
The throw-away-society arrived while you weren't paying attention.
All that trash needs to go somewhere.
How many times can a $40 VCR be fixed?

So you go right ahead and get in line for those new, high quality, 10 year
life, $50 LED lighting devices.. then spend your time repairing them.
You're savig the planet and contributing to humanitarian causes. There
oughta be an award for that, Oh.. there is, it's called an inflated ego.

I don't dispute that an LED can last 10 years, only that in the present
manufacturing environment, a 40-100W LED lamp is going to be manufactured to
fail.
I have a lot of LED flashlights and portable lights and they work great for
seeing in the dark, or signaling such as panel indicators, but piss poor at
illuminating a room.

With LED flashlights, they seem to produce a lot of light when surrounded by
darkness, but they don't "throw" light very well at all.. and the reflector
becomes more important than the miniscule light source.
Reflectors take space, which defeats making a device compact.

Unless you live like people did in the early 1900s with one dim lamp per
room, LED home lighting is going to be very costly, both in terms of early
failures and replacing fixtures which won't accomodate the new designs.
Might also be a good time to change all interior items to white.. white
floors, walls, furniture, etc.

LED lighting might be great for a camper/caravan with 12V lighting circuits,
but I suspect there will be lots of problems with adapting 240 or 120VAC to
3V.
Power supplies introduce losses, spike/surge suppressors add to final cost.

Has anyone discovered a metal as good as/better than gold for those tiny
leads attached to LED (and IC) chips?
When gold loses it's value, LEDs will become cheaper to produce.

You keep parroting that incandescent lamps have short or extremely short
lifespans, which could be true of the cheap examples you bought, but they
don't cost anywhere near $50 each and aren't hazardous waste to end up in
the ground near water supplies. BTW, many thread bases of light bulbs today
are aluminum, as are the threaded sockets in many fixtures.

Incandescent light bulb costs have traditionally (for generations now) been
insignificant in the annual budget of home maintenance.. but that is going
to change, significantly.

Maybe everyone will need to keep a drawer/cupboard full of LED lamps to
insure their homes aren't dangerous to move around in.. cha-ching!

I'm not exaggerating my experiences with CFLs, but I can tell ya that a 10
year life for CFLs is not average or even close to common.

Almost all of my CFLs are/have been mounted base-down in open/ventilated
metal reflectors.. I've had 3 go into catastrophic failure, turning red hot
before I could react quickly to shut them off. The only warning was a few
blinks just prior to the failures.

You were the one that initiated the question of proof so I just played
along, because I knew your response was predictable.
I've presented proof.. these are my opinions.. no, seriously. They weren't
composed by some marketing firm.

**Irrelevant.. was your answer for how many of those LEDs it takes to
illuminate a room.
OK.. right.

My comments aren't arguments that my opinions are correct, so you go ahead
and argue all you want to.

--
Cheers,
WB
.............

== 3 of 14 ==
Date: Wed, Sep 21 2011 1:30 pm
From: "Trevor Wilson"

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>
>> **I do. I keep track of the life of my lamps. Incandescents don't
>> last long.
>
>
> There are some in the US that have been on 24/7 for decades, and
> still work. Some are over 100 years old.

**Indeed. The ways to get incandescents to last a long time are well known.
They are simply under-run massively. IOW: Use a 280VAC rated lamp at 240VAC
and the thing will last MUCH longer. Of course, colour temperature edges
much closer towards the red and efficiency is absolute crap.

Cheap bulbs don't last,
> and neither do those that are used improperly.

**Not so different to CFLs and LEDs. Funny about that.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

== 4 of 14 ==
Date: Wed, Sep 21 2011 3:12 pm
From: "Trevor Wilson"

Wild_Bill wrote:
> You really are a blue ribbon simpleton, Trev.

**Tell you what, dickhead: Try using some facts and logic to support your
arguments and you'll sound like you have a brain. So far, you just sound
like an idiot. You use insults in preference to common-sense, logic and hard
evidence. I will now give you a chance to redeem yourself.

>
> When computers were being introduced for home use, other forms of
> communication and/or creativity weren't banned.

**Blah, blah, blah. We're talking about incandescents, LEDs and CFLs. Stay
on topic.

>
> I recall the "proposed" huge benefits of widespread computer use were
> going to include:
>
> -dramatically reduce paper usage and eliminate the necessity of an
> infinite number of forms.
> Then eveyone started buying printers for every reason imaginable, and
> using computers to create and generate more forms.
> Products with no real value.. phone books, magazines, catalogs.. still
> paper, although many are digitized.
>
> -reduce the size of government since there wouldn't be a need for as
> many people to move around all those forms that would no longer be
> paper. Didn't see that happen either.

**Blah, blah, blah. We're talking about incandescents, LEDs and CFLs. Stay
on topic.

>
> -records will be more secure.
> Hogwash.. after many disasters, there are reports of lost records
> which aren't archived elsewhere.
>
> Computers have increased corporate profits, but have done little to
> make everyday life more comfortable or convenient for the people
> inhabiting the planet.
> Well, then there are the smart people that create a letterhead and a
> worthless organization based upon their own misguided adgendas, to
> leech money from others for a good cause.

**Blah, blah, blah. We're talking about incandescents, LEDs and CFLs. Stay
on topic.

>
> -Make much more effective the use of our time (don't care for the
> "save time" hoax, kinda like products that pay for themselves).
> Yet everywhere people need to get in a line for a purchase or
> service, there are still always lines and peope waiting.
> Daily encounters with computers aren't really faster and more
> efficient, they're actually more complicated.

**Blah, blah, blah. We're talking about incandescents, LEDs and CFLs. Stay
on topic.

>
> You keep yapping about silicon, yet there are no reasons people die
> from silicon.

**Huh? WTF are you talking about? I merely corrected your idiotic comments
about CFLs and LEDs.

>
> Mercury, gallium arsenide and other toxic elements are actually
> contained within new lighting technologies, but not in incandescent
> lamps.

**So? There are a large range of toxic elements in the computer you are
using, in the cell 'phone you may happen to use and just about every other
modern device. What's your point? Are you going to cease using your
computer? Please do so immediately. Give us a rest your incessant twaddle
and idiotic top-posting.

There are harmful chemicals in a great many products. Those chemicals need
to be dealt with correctly and appropriately.

> Maybe you should start yapping about argon.
>
> You might actually believe that "regulators ensure that the pollution
> created is dealt with appropriately".
> This is partially true, and generally always after the pollution has
> taken place (often for a long time without detection), after the
> fact, and the cleanup costs are generally always put on the citizens.
> The fines are generally only symbolic.

**Then why don't YOU start by not using your computer? Stop buying lead acid
batteries, NiCd batteries, any products that use leaded solder, any products
with tantalum capacitors contained within, anything using gold sourced from
Papua, petroleum products, anything using plastic, etc, etc. YOU should
follow your own advice.

>
> You seem to think that someone should be impressed with the
> dozen-or-so lighting devices you've commented on.

**No. I am citing fact. Nothing more. I have not experienced a CFL failure,
ever (other than misuse). Of course, I only purchase quality CFLs and I use
them correctly.

> Your experience (real or not) is completely insignificant in the
> lighting industry which includes hundreds of millions/billions of
> lighting devices sold every year.

**OK. Then YOU need to provide the data which shows how unreliable quality,
correctly operated CFLs are. My anecdotes are EXACTLY as irrelevant as
yours.

>
> The incidence of failure of products from China is higher than it's
> ever been for many of the people alive today. Many of these products
> don't even function when new.

**More twaddle. Some products are good. Some not so good. Just for yuks, I
thought I'd test your theory.

In the last 20-odd years, I've used a number of 'walk-about' telephones. A
couple were Panasonics, whilst others were from other manufacturers. Except
for the one I use right now, all were manufactured in Japan. They all
failed. Some last 4 or 5 years and some lasted less than a year. The one I
have beside me is 6 years old. It is made in China.

> The race to the bottom as far as product quality goes, is based upon
> greed. Very few products are manufactured today that are intended to
> last for 10 years, and that means very few consumer electronic
> devices.. of which many don't last 2 years.

**The nation with the worst reputation for quality (or domestic products) is
the USA, not China. Except Cree.

>
> What this means is that your 10 year old LED example isn't even
> relative in today's manufacturing practices.

**I'll let you know in another ten years. We'll see how long the ones I've
recently installed last.

> The throw-away-society arrived while you weren't paying attention.
> All that trash needs to go somewhere.
> How many times can a $40 VCR be fixed?

**As many times as you like. However, a $100.00 VCR is likely to last MUCH
longer than a $1,500.00 VCR manufactured in 1980.

>
> So you go right ahead and get in line for those new, high quality, 10
> year life, $50 LED lighting devices.. then spend your time repairing
> them.

**Cite your proof that the LEDs will fail prematurely.

You're savig the planet and contributing to humanitarian
> causes. There oughta be an award for that, Oh.. there is, it's called
> an inflated ego.
> I don't dispute that an LED can last 10 years, only that in the
> present manufacturing environment, a 40-100W LED lamp is going to be
> manufactured to fail.

**Prove it.

> I have a lot of LED flashlights and portable lights and they work
> great for seeing in the dark, or signaling such as panel indicators,
> but piss poor at illuminating a room.

**You have got to be the most pig-ignorant poster we've seen in quite a long
time. Light is light. It can be measured and quantified.

>
> With LED flashlights, they seem to produce a lot of light when
> surrounded by darkness, but they don't "throw" light very well at
> all.. and the reflector becomes more important than the miniscule
> light source. Reflectors take space, which defeats making a device
> compact.

**Just when I thought you were speaking complete bollocks, you surpass
yourself for abject stupidity. I direct you to a link, which shows what two,
identical power consumption torches can do. One is a 3 Watt halogen torch.
The other is a 3 Watt LED torch:

http://s1112.photobucket.com/albums/k497/Zaphod1000/

In case you have not worked it out, the right hand one is the halogen and
the left is the LED. The halogen was fitted with fresh batteries. I charged
the Lithium battery in the LED torch a month ago.

Now, please explain WTF you mean by LED torches not being able to "throw"
light very well. I can tell you that the torch whose beam you can see in the
photo is easily capable of lighting up stuff a couple of hundred Metres
away. The halogen doesn't have a snowball's chance in Hell.

>
> Unless you live like people did in the early 1900s with one dim lamp
> per room, LED home lighting is going to be very costly, both in terms
> of early failures and replacing fixtures which won't accomodate the
> new designs.

**So you keep claiming. Let's see you hard proof of your claims.

Might also be a good time to change all interior items
> to white.. white floors, walls, furniture, etc.
>
> LED lighting might be great for a camper/caravan with 12V lighting
> circuits, but I suspect there will be lots of problems with adapting
> 240 or 120VAC to 3V.
> Power supplies introduce losses, spike/surge suppressors add to final
> cost.

**Of course. Just like CFLs, there is an extra cost associated with LEDs.
However, the MASSIVE increase in efficiency and incredibly long life make up
for those issues.

>
> Has anyone discovered a metal as good as/better than gold for those
> tiny leads attached to LED (and IC) chips?
> When gold loses it's value, LEDs will become cheaper to produce.

**Blah, blah, blah. We're talking about incandescents, LEDs and CFLs. Stay
on topic.

>
> You keep parroting that incandescent lamps have short or extremely
> short lifespans, which could be true of the cheap examples you
> bought, but they don't cost anywhere near $50 each and aren't
> hazardous waste to end up in the ground near water supplies. BTW,
> many thread bases of light bulbs today are aluminum, as are the
> threaded sockets in many fixtures.

**A VERY large number of incandescent lamps were/are produced using lead
solder. Lead is toxic. And again: Proper disposal should be part of any
product's design. That includes CFLs, LEDs and incandescents.

>
> Incandescent light bulb costs have traditionally (for generations
> now) been insignificant in the annual budget of home maintenance..
> but that is going to change, significantly.

**Fortunately, the long life of CFLs and LEDs make that cost irrelevant.
However, let's examine that claim:

I use 23 Watt CFLs in a number of locations. They cost around AUS$5.00 each.
SO FAR, I have obtained around 3,500 hours of use, at minimal light
degradation. I fully expect a life of at least 7,000 ~ 10,000 hours from
these lamps. However, let's use the low end figure for calculation: 3,500
hours. $5.00 for 3,500 hours. Total powe4r consumption for that period =
80.5 kW/hours. At (say) $0.20/kW/hr = $16.10. Total running cost = $21.10.
In reality, the figure will be somewhat lower.

To replace that 23 Watt CFL, I need to use a (minimum) 100 Watt incandescent
(it's really more like 125 Watt, but I'm going easy on you). Let's say the
cost of a decent one was AUS$1.00. The BEST one can expect from a 100 lamp
is around 500 hours. Let's say 1,000 hours, because I'm feeling generous.
You'll need 3.5 lamps to equal one CFL. Total initial cost $3.50. Power
consumption for the period is 350kW/hours. At $0.20/kW/hr = $70.00. Total
running cost = $73.50.

CFL comfortably nails the incandescent.

My own experience with incandescents suggests that a 100 Watt incandescent
will likely last considerably less than 200 hours.

>
> Maybe everyone will need to keep a drawer/cupboard full of LED lamps
> to insure their homes aren't dangerous to move around in.. cha-ching!

**No need. LED last a very long time.

>
> I'm not exaggerating my experiences with CFLs, but I can tell ya that
> a 10 year life for CFLs is not average or even close to common.

**Then cite your proof.

>
> Almost all of my CFLs are/have been mounted base-down in
> open/ventilated metal reflectors.. I've had 3 go into catastrophic
> failure, turning red hot before I could react quickly to shut them
> off. The only warning was a few blinks just prior to the failures.

**Stop buying shitty CFLs.

>
> You were the one that initiated the question of proof so I just played
> along, because I knew your response was predictable.
> I've presented proof.. these are my opinions.. no, seriously. They
> weren't composed by some marketing firm.

**You have not provided proof. See my photo as something that represents
proof and shreds at least one of your dodgy and seriously deluded arguments.

>
> **Irrelevant.. was your answer for how many of those LEDs it takes to
> illuminate a room.
> OK.. right.

**I made no claim that the first generation LEDs that I was using could
light a room.

>
> My comments aren't arguments that my opinions are correct, so you go
> ahead and argue all you want to.

**Supply your proof and learn how to post properly.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

== 5 of 14 ==
Date: Wed, Sep 21 2011 3:20 pm
From: "Trevor Wilson"

Arfa Daily wrote:
> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
> news:9dt97uFguqU1@mid.individual.net...
>> Wild_Bill wrote:
>>> Maybe you know of a heat pump that will illuminate a house, and only
>>> cost the owner about $20 per year to purchase.
>>
>> **I don't. And YOU don't know of a lamp that can heat a house (or
>> cool one) either. Using lights to warm a home is insane. Pretty much
>> like everything else you've posted.
>>
>>>
>>> Production of plastics pollutes, so does gallium arsenide, and
>>> mercury in CFLs.
>>
>> **No one disputes that. Production of almost any manufactured item
>> causes some kind of pollution. That is why regulators ensure that
>> the pollution created is dealt with appropriately. Fortunately, LEDs
>> last a VERY long time and consume small amounts of material, so
>> total pollution remains low.
>>
>>> Were you born yesterday?
>>
>> **Did the manufacturing process of computer you are presently using
>> cause zero pollution? Are you insane?
>>
>>>
>>> Just because the pollution takes place somewhere else doesn't mean
>>> it doesn't effect all.
>>
>> **I am well aware of that. I am also a supporter of organisations
>> that attempt to minimise pollution caused by large manufacturers of
>> many products. Are you?
>>
>>> Ubuntu.
>>>
>>> Some say that only about 1% of the water on this planet is
>>> drinkable, although there's plenty that's contaminated with toxic
>>> chemicals and disease.
>>> Many people drink and bathe in poisonous, disease polluted water,
>>> but that shouldn't concern you.
>>
>> **Like I said: I contribute financially to several organisations
>> that are active in trying to ensure that people less fortunate than
>> I am are not subject to pollution from large companies. Do you?
>>
>>>
>>> Who is dying from silicon?
>>
>> **The manufacture of glass, steel and tungsten is a very energy
>> intensive process. Combined with the extremely short life-span of
>> incandescent lamps and their monsterous inefficiency (Less than 5%)
>> contributes to huge amounts of CO2. CFLs and LEDs cause far less CO2
>> to be emitted, both in manufacture and in operation over the life of
>> the product. CO2 affects every human on the planet.
>
>
> I don't have actual figures, Trevor, but it makes sense that making a
> thin glass spherical envelope for an incandescent, is unlikely to use
> more energy than making a thick-walled tube wound into a convoluted
> double spiral.

**Intuitively, that would be a reasonable assumption.

Many of the other items contained in a CFL, also use
> very energy intensive processes, and have to be carried out in many
> different factories, which then brings the costs of moving workers
> around, keeping them warm and fed, moving raw materials around,
> moving finished components around, and so on. Just because all of
> these things are 'hidden', it doesn't make them any less relevant.

**I agree.

> Looked at rationally, given the amount of components and
> manufacturing processes involved, I would have thought that the
> simple incandescent bulb, with its very few parts, consumed nothing
> like as much energy overall to get from nothing to working in my
> house.

**I don't know how much energy is involved with each device, but I'll betcha
the energy consumed by the incandescent, over it's entire life vastly
exceeds the energy required to manufacture it. The CFL, by comparison, is a
massively more efficient device, with a much longer life span. Total energy
is likely to be far lower with the CFL. And no, I don't have the data, but I
imagine someone has done the maths.

Bear in mind also, that very long-lived incandescents are
> available, and always were. Its just that they cost more, and are not
> in the financial interests of the bulb manufacturers, to promote.

**And, they are vastly less efficient. The technology to build long lasting
incandescents has been known for a long time - operate them at lower
Voltages, or use a carbon filament. Either way, colour temperature sucks and
efficiency is way down.

BTW: The discussion also involves LEDs. IMO, CFLs are an interim step. They
have far too many drawbacks to be a long term solution. Incandescents are,
of course, no solution at all.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

== 6 of 14 ==
Date: Wed, Sep 21 2011 4:49 pm
From: "Phil Allison"

"Ian Fuckwit Field"

> Last time I looked ..

** Impossible for anyone who has wanked themselves blind to look at
anything.

== 7 of 14 ==
Date: Wed, Sep 21 2011 5:01 pm
From: "Michael A. Terrell"

Trevor Wilson wrote:
>
> Michael A. Terrell wrote:
> > Trevor Wilson wrote:
> >>
> >> **I do. I keep track of the life of my lamps. Incandescents don't
> >> last long.
> >
> >
> > There are some in the US that have been on 24/7 for decades, and
> > still work. Some are over 100 years old.
>
> **Indeed. The ways to get incandescents to last a long time are well known.
> They are simply under-run massively. IOW: Use a 280VAC rated lamp at 240VAC
> and the thing will last MUCH longer. Of course, colour temperature edges
> much closer towards the red and efficiency is absolute crap.
>
> Cheap bulbs don't last,
> > and neither do those that are used improperly.
>
> **Not so different to CFLs and LEDs. Funny about that.

Still doesn't prove your lame assed claim that incandescents don't
last.

--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.

== 8 of 14 ==
Date: Wed, Sep 21 2011 5:12 pm
From: "Phil Allison"

"Jim Yanksit"

> incandescent lamps color temps do NOT match that of the sun;

** Irrelevant.

> "daylight" CT is around 6500K

** Daylight varies over a wide range of light intensity and colour.

OTOH, artificial light is constant and the eye adjusts.

> Daylight is much "whiter" than incandescent light.

** See above.

== 9 of 14 ==
Date: Wed, Sep 21 2011 5:15 pm
From: "Arfa Daily"

"Phil Allison" <phil_a@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:9dsttbF2n3U1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "Arfa Daily"
> "Trevor Wilson"
>>
>> <snip>
>>>
>>> * LEDs use a miniscule amount of silicon.
>>> * Incandescent lamps use a very large amount of silicon
>>
>> Whereabouts ?
>
>
> ** The TW charlatan is being a real clever dick.
>
> Glass is about 23% silicon by weight.

So is that *all* glass ? I can't find any reference anywhere to silicon
being a component of bog-standard glass. Is it just naturally in there, and
if so, in what form ? Or is it put in there for some reason, and for what
purpose if so ?

>
> Got NOTHING to do with the very nasty polluting and carcinogenic
> processes involved in making silicon semiconductors.
>
>

Yes, where the silicon has been extracted from whatever ore it occurs in,
and then refined

> .... Phil
>

Arfa

== 10 of 14 ==
Date: Wed, Sep 21 2011 5:16 pm
From: "Arfa Daily"

"Jim Yanik" <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote in message
news:Xns9F67703D7720Ajyaniklocalnetcom@216.168.3.44...
> "Arfa Daily" <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote in
> news:bfbeq.813$Jq5.386@newsfe02.ams2:
>
>>
>>
>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:9dse5pFcrmU1@mid.individual.net...
>>> the following:
>>
>>
>><snip>
>>>
>>> * LEDs use a miniscule amount of silicon.
>>> * Incandescent lamps use a very large amount of silicon
>>
>> Whereabouts ?
>>
>> Arfa
>>
>>
>>
>
> the glass envelope.
>
> --
> Jim Yanik
> jyanik
> at
> localnet
> dot com

See my question regarding this, elsewhere in the thread

Arfa

== 11 of 14 ==
Date: Wed, Sep 21 2011 5:21 pm
From: "Phil Allison"

"Arfa Daily"
>
>> ** The TW charlatan is being a real clever dick.
>>
>> Glass is about 23% silicon by weight.
>
>
> So is that *all* glass ? I can't find any reference anywhere to silicon
> being a component of bog-standard glass.

** Glass is 75% Silica - aka beach sand.

Silica is SO2

Yawnnnnnnnn.....

....Phil

== 12 of 14 ==
Date: Wed, Sep 21 2011 5:38 pm
From: "Arfa Daily"

>
> BTW: The discussion also involves LEDs. IMO, CFLs are an interim step.
> They have far too many drawbacks to be a long term solution. Incandescents
> are, of course, no solution at all.
>
>
> --
> Trevor Wilson
> www.rageaudio.com.au
>

But actually, what exactly is the problem that we're trying to find a
solution to ? I saw some figures a few weeks ago that said that if every
single light bulb in the UK was changed to a CFL, the total saving in energy
would amount to the output of one small power station. I suppose that you
could argue that any saving is worth having, but I sometimes think that this
religion of 'green' has completely overtaken common sense, and in some
cases, the disadvantages of a substitute technology such as CFLs, needs to
be weighed against the perceived disadvantages of what it's trying to
replace. The problem with green technology is that its advocators are often
zealots, who seek to portray the alternatives that they are pedaling as the
only solution to a problem which often, only they see. They never tell the
full story behind these technologies, being selective in the extreme. CFLs
are a good example of this, where the *only* aspects that have been
promoted, are the fact that they consume less energy for the same amount of
light output as an 'equivalent' incandescent - and therein lies a can of
worms before we start - and that they are supposedly longer lived. The huge
amounts of manufacturing processes, and shipping energy for all the
component parts, and all the other hidden energy inputs, are politely
ignored. Not to mention the true disposal costs, if this is done properly.
No one really understands the real manufacturing costs either, because
governments are making sure that the true price is subsidised by collecting
additional 'green' taxes via the energy companies, from the likes of you and
I. If ever these subsidies are removed, CFLs will become a major expense to
a household, unless they use really crappy quality Chinese imports that give
poor light quality and poor starting characteristics, and are much shorter
lived than people are currently being persuaded is the case.

Arfa

== 13 of 14 ==
Date: Wed, Sep 21 2011 5:39 pm
From: Sjouke Burry

Arfa Daily wrote:
>
> "Phil Allison" <phil_a@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
> news:9dsttbF2n3U1@mid.individual.net...
>> "Arfa Daily"
>> "Trevor Wilson"
>>> <snip>
>>>> * LEDs use a miniscule amount of silicon.
>>>> * Incandescent lamps use a very large amount of silicon
>>> Whereabouts ?
>>
>> ** The TW charlatan is being a real clever dick.
>>
>> Glass is about 23% silicon by weight.
>
>
> So is that *all* glass ? I can't find any reference anywhere to silicon
> being a component of bog-standard glass. Is it just naturally in there, and
> if so, in what form ? Or is it put in there for some reason, and for what
> purpose if so ?
>
>
>
>> Got NOTHING to do with the very nasty polluting and carcinogenic
>> processes involved in making silicon semiconductors.
>>
>>
>
> Yes, where the silicon has been extracted from whatever ore it occurs in,
> and then refined
>
>
>> .... Phil
>>
>
> Arfa
>
Silicon and oxygen together make sand.
Glass is made from sand and a few other simple things.
No pollution,grind the glass, and (RE-)use it as sand.
Semiconducters on the other hand, have quite dirty production
methods,and eating globs of energy during the refining
stage(zone melting).
See the news about the solar cell factory(s) in China which have been
closed down....

Also, I bet there is more glass in a cfl, then in an incandescent.

The cfl's which failed me, all had the big capacitor burn out,except
one, where the tube shattered.

Last, hot semiconductors have the nasty habit of failing quickly,
so I kind of do not believe those stories about the very long lifetimes
for cfl an leds, heat kills quickly.
Once they are able to produce a lightsource which stays cool,
and is efficient, I will start believing those long lifetimes.

== 14 of 14 ==
Date: Wed, Sep 21 2011 6:08 pm
From: "Dennis"

"Phil Allison" <phil_a@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:9dvbhgFrhaU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "Ian Fuckwit Field"
>
>
>> Last time I looked ..
>
>
> ** Impossible for anyone who has wanked themselves blind to look at
> anything.
>
>
>
Bullshit Phil, it's a myth;

http://psychcentral.com/lib/2007/does-masturbation-cause-blindness/

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Homebrew emergency power system - advice needed please
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/d07d79e0d8a0cf60?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Sep 21 2011 10:29 am
From: news@jecarter.us

On Wed, 21 Sep 2011 06:30:30 -0400, bobvalli@NOSPAMcomcast.net wrote:

>Hi
>
>I could use some feedback regarding a brainstorm of mine. I'm in the
>process of building an emergency power system for home use.
>
>The main questios are regarding supply and re-charging.
>
>For the supply, for now I'm using 12V starting batteries. The plan is
>to pick up 2 (or possibly 4) 6V 156Ah golf cart batteries.
>
>For the charger I mated a 63A Delco alternator with internal 12V
>regulatioin to a gas snowblower engine.
>
>I want to use a 1500W inverter to supply about 180 watts of AC, 8x IR
>LED surveillance cameras, and about a dozen 20mA LED lamps for
>emergency lighting all operating at their native 12VDC
>
>The questions are:
>
>Would I be able to use my alternator/generator to charge the golf cart
>batteries without damaging them?
>
>Until I'm able to get the golf cart batteries, would the couple
>starting batteries I have work OK?
>
>TIA
>
>Bob
>
>

Starting batteries don't last long if discharged below the 80% of
charge level. The golf cart batteries will last much longer, but the
best life will be achieved if the discharge is limited to 50% or less.
The 63A altenator will only provide 63A if running at high speed
(5000-6000 rpm) so you'd need to adjust pulley sizes to get full power
when driving it with a 3000-3600 rpm engine. The rate of charge is
also dependent on the battery's state of charge, so it's unlikely that
your proposed setup will harm the golf cart batteries. The bigger
concern is what the end of charge voltage of the golf cart batteries
should be versus the end of charge voltage the alternator and its
regulator are designed for. The golf cart batteries are deep cycle
and *may* have a different end point voltage - check the manufacturers
specs.

Using an oversized inverter usually wastes battery power. Inverters
have their "sweet spot" where they have optimum efficiency - usually
somewhere in the 50%-90% load range. For longest battery life, you
should replace the inverter with a smaller one - and look carefully at
the no-load current requirement. Inverter idle drain isn't usually
high on the list of features people look for - most people are looking
at the maximum power they can get from it. I have a PowerStar UPG400
that idles at about 1 watt (that's about 0.1 amps). I would guess
that your 1500 watt inverter idles at 6 watts (0.5amps) - probably
more. The UPG400 was a serendipity buy - $24.50 plus shipping (couple
of pounds) - from a closeout at hsc.com n Dec 2009. Until I did
research, I had no idea that a 1990-91 vintage inverter could be so
efficient. Only wish I had known more about it sooner and been able
to purchase several.

I'm not an expert on backup/standby power, but I've had emergency
generators (one 1850 watt and one 5000 watt) for some time. Two
generators? Yes, the little one if rotating power to one item at a
time -freezer, fridge, etc - is adequate, the big one if multiple
appliances are needed simultaneously -i.e., furnace and microwave
oven. The little gen runs a lot longer on a gallon of gas than the
big one at the same load.

I've been doing a lot of research recently before setting up a small
solar system (70AH battery, 45 watt solar array) for testing. I've
even measured the drain the solar charge controller puts on the
battery - while it's typically in the milliamp range, some use two or
three times as much as others. Solar amps are expensive, so I'm
looking to get as many of them as possible to the load, not the
control electronics. Lots of LED's on the controller *look*
impressive, but require a lot of milliamps to be visible in sunlight.
An analog meter or an LCD panel with no backlight (or a switchable
backlight) requires less power to operate.

John

==============================================================================
TOPIC: TL064 in PV 212 Deuce, VT Series, 1980
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/335a27fd0c57212f?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Sep 21 2011 10:36 am
From: "Wild_Bill"

I had this other substitute in my Peavey amp folder, but I forget where I
found it (originally was TL604 DG419 cross reference.doc).

I haven't tried this substitute, so it should be examined closely comparing
datasheets for each device to substitute a TL604 with a DG419 with the pin
changes and components added.
It may be worth considering adding the zener mentioned in the DG211 plans..
although it may not be required.

I dunno if either IC is more readily available (DG211 or 419), although the
DG419 is an 8-pin device.

Pin 5 of the DG419 must see +5VDC for the chip to work properly. This
can be done with a voltage divider network connected to the +15VDC
supply:

1. Connect a 2.2k resistor from the +15 VDC supply or pin 4 of the DG419
2. Connect a 1k resistor in series with this 2.2k resistor to ground.
3. Connect the 2.2k/1k node to pin 5 of the DG419.

TL604 pin DG419 pin
1 Connects to: 3
2 Connects to: 6
3 Connects to: 8
4 Connects to: 2
5 Connects to: 7
6 Connects to: 1
7 Connects to: N/A
8 Connects to: 4

--
Cheers,
WB
.............

"N_Cook" <diverse@tcp.co.uk> wrote in message
news:j577og$67i$1@dont-email.me...
>> >
>> > Back working again. A neat 1 x 3/4 inch matrix board mounted
>> > vertically,
>> > enough space, with lowest .2 inches tied and glued around an 8 pin
> turned
>> > pin socket to fit into the existing socket. Bridging wires dsoldered
> into
>> > the turned pins. Sockets glued together as now a rockable assembly.
>> >
>> > This is the node map
>> > TL604 , DG211
>> > pin1 , pin5
>> > p2 , p8 + p16
>> > p3 , p2
>> > p4 , p7
>> > p5 , p4
>> > p6 , p6
>> > p7 , p3
>> > p8 , via 10K to p13
>> >
>> > DG211 additional comps
>> > p1 via 4K7 to p5
>> > p5 low side of 5V zener high side to p12
>> > p12 via SM 10K to p13
>> >
>> > I've left the 2 unused 211 controls unterminated, as in pv cct, just
>> > in
>> > case circuit critical but probably should be tied to DC
>> >
>> >
>>
>
> With a SMD 211 I suppose it would be possible to make a direct plug-in pin
> for pin space for space version. Then those unobtanium f dividers for old
> synths etc
>
> Today, hopefully replacing a cleaned out rotary "encoder" for a Yamaha amp
> today and be able to reliably up/down select inputs again. But got me
> thinking if you had to make one of these as a replacement, it would be
> quite
> possible. Indented 10 or 12 position rotary but offs in the detent
> posistions and off-radius pairs of contacts so outer contacts make
> momentarilly before the inner pad between each dedent, clockwise and
> opposite for acw
>
>
>

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Alliance U100 antenna rotor
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/d0231afb599de425?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Sep 21 2011 1:02 pm
From: Jerry Peters

klem kedidelhopper <captainvideo462009@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> I used to install the Alliance U100 rotors for all my antenna jobs.
> These rotors had 4 terminals that connected to the control box. I just
> came across an Alliance rotor that looks just like a U100 however it
> has 5 terminals instead of 4. I have never seen this model of Alliance
> rotor before. Does anyone know what the purpose of the fifth terminal
> was for and if there is any way that this rotor could be used with a
> standard U100 four terminal control box? Someone else suggested that
> the fifth terminal was for a similar system as the U100 but it was
> solid state. If so, was the solid state circuitry in the box or the
> rotor? Because as I remember from disassembling and repairing some of
> those, inside the rotor were just motor windings and a stop switch, I
> wonder if in fact the electronics was all in the box and the fifth
> terminal was just something to do with the solid state "improvement"
> to the system, one could possibly ignore the fifth terminal and just
> use a standard U100 ratchet type box? Lenny

It's not a "stop switch", every time the contacts close, it actuates
the solenoid in the control box & advances the dial by 1 detent.

Jerry

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Sep 21 2011 3:21 pm
From: "Dave M"

Jerry Peters wrote:
> klem kedidelhopper <captainvideo462009@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I used to install the Alliance U100 rotors for all my antenna jobs.
>> These rotors had 4 terminals that connected to the control box. I
>> just came across an Alliance rotor that looks just like a U100
>> however it has 5 terminals instead of 4. I have never seen this
>> model of Alliance rotor before. Does anyone know what the purpose
>> of the fifth terminal was for and if there is any way that this
>> rotor could be used with a standard U100 four terminal control box?
>> Someone else suggested that the fifth terminal was for a similar
>> system as the U100 but it was solid state. If so, was the solid
>> state circuitry in the box or the rotor? Because as I remember from
>> disassembling and repairing some of those, inside the rotor were
>> just motor windings and a stop switch, I wonder if in fact the
>> electronics was all in the box and the fifth terminal was just
>> something to do with the solid state "improvement" to the system,
>> one could possibly ignore the fifth terminal and just use a standard
>> U100 ratchet type box? Lenny
>
>
> It's not a "stop switch", every time the contacts close, it actuates
> the solenoid in the control box & advances the dial by 1 detent.
>
> Jerry

Your 5-terminal rotator unit is likely model C-225. It's definitely a solid
state control box, and can't be modified to control a U-100 rotor. The
rotors are different inside; the U-100 rotor having a reversing capacitor
and the motor, the C-225 having the motor and a position-sensing
potentiometer.

Go to http://bama.edebris.com/manuals/alliance/rotorservice and download the
Alliance Antenna Rotor Service Manual and you'll be able to see the details
of both models, and why they aren't compatible.

--
David
dgminala at mediacombb dot net

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Need help with switching power supply repair
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/efc81d21dede85df?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Sep 21 2011 1:31 pm
From: senator richards

I am trying to troubleshoot a small SMPS that came from an A/V
switcher. Input is 120vac and it is supposed to output + and - 15vdc
at .8A. Currently it is outputting +17 on one output and somewhere
between +22 and +30 on the other output. My experience with SMPS has
usually been shorted rectifiers or bad output filter caps so the first
thing I did was check all the diodes and replace the output caps.
Obviously that didn't fix the problem. The high voltage is about
170vdc. The supply to the pwm chip is fluctuating between 7-15v, so
i'm thinking this might be the problem, but maybe its something else.
In case its not obvious, i'm fairly new to tinkering with these
things. Thanks in advance for any help.

Randy

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Sep 21 2011 5:08 pm
From: "Arfa Daily"

"senator richards" <rnewman36@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:dd3e3ab9-1f98-41b8-a7ec-08431af9a33d@u20g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
> I am trying to troubleshoot a small SMPS that came from an A/V
> switcher. Input is 120vac and it is supposed to output + and - 15vdc
> at .8A. Currently it is outputting +17 on one output and somewhere
> between +22 and +30 on the other output. My experience with SMPS has
> usually been shorted rectifiers or bad output filter caps so the first
> thing I did was check all the diodes and replace the output caps.
> Obviously that didn't fix the problem. The high voltage is about
> 170vdc. The supply to the pwm chip is fluctuating between 7-15v, so
> i'm thinking this might be the problem, but maybe its something else.
> In case its not obvious, i'm fairly new to tinkering with these
> things. Thanks in advance for any help.
>
> Randy

The cap that filters the supply to the pwm chip on the primary side, maybe ?
It's pretty common on most designs of switcher. Work on the thing on an
isolation transformer if at all possible. They are potentially very very
dangerous if you are not fully competent with them

Arfa

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Sep 21 2011 5:34 pm
From: Jamie

senator richards wrote:

> I am trying to troubleshoot a small SMPS that came from an A/V
> switcher. Input is 120vac and it is supposed to output + and - 15vdc
> at .8A. Currently it is outputting +17 on one output and somewhere
> between +22 and +30 on the other output. My experience with SMPS has
> usually been shorted rectifiers or bad output filter caps so the first
> thing I did was check all the diodes and replace the output caps.
> Obviously that didn't fix the problem. The high voltage is about
> 170vdc. The supply to the pwm chip is fluctuating between 7-15v, so
> i'm thinking this might be the problem, but maybe its something else.
> In case its not obvious, i'm fairly new to tinkering with these
> things. Thanks in advance for any help.
>
> Randy
See if you have an optical coupler in there. I've seen these used as
part of the regulation and it's possible it isn't working any more.

Also check for bad caps, ripple could be causing a reg issue.

Jamie

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Sep 21 2011 5:58 pm
From: "Phil Allison"

"senator richards"

>I am trying to troubleshoot a small SMPS that came from an A/V
> switcher. Input is 120vac and it is supposed to output + and - 15vdc
> at .8A. Currently it is outputting +17 on one output and somewhere
> between +22 and +30 on the other output.

** That is very odd.

You real sure of that measurement?

> The supply to the pwm chip is fluctuating between 7-15v,

** Means the supply for the IC is not holding up.

Check for open resistors or diodes in the supply chain to that IC.

Any yellow glue in sight ?

.... Phil

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Sep 21 2011 6:14 pm
From: Sjouke Burry

senator richards wrote:
> I am trying to troubleshoot a small SMPS that came from an A/V
> switcher. Input is 120vac and it is supposed to output + and - 15vdc
> at .8A. Currently it is outputting +17 on one output and somewhere
> between +22 and +30 on the other output. My experience with SMPS has
> usually been shorted rectifiers or bad output filter caps so the first
> thing I did was check all the diodes and replace the output caps.
> Obviously that didn't fix the problem. The high voltage is about
> 170vdc. The supply to the pwm chip is fluctuating between 7-15v, so
> i'm thinking this might be the problem, but maybe its something else.
> In case its not obvious, i'm fairly new to tinkering with these
> things. Thanks in advance for any help.
>
> Randy
Try to load both sides with about .1amp, low load on a switcher
can confuse the hardware sometimes.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Why is there a thermistor in the power door lock circuit.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/c6bd6f6fca427310?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Sep 21 2011 1:56 pm
From: "Ron D."

Yep, the shop manuals for Toyotas are almost idiot's guides. They
give specific tests, but no clue as to how the system operates. I
think Toyota wants you to pay for a course to find that information
out. I've seen pieces of Toyota training publications and they are
more generic, but do define how various systems function.

The Chevrolet guides I've used (2000) has a lot more design type info
in their manual. A similar year Toyota is just different,

PTC thermisters are regularly used for battery pack protection and
solenoid protection. They are way more reliable for this application.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Sep 21 2011 5:17 pm
From: Jamie

micky wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 20:52:53 -0400, micky <NONONOmisc07@bigfoot.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>What would the role of a thermistor be in the power door lock circuit
>>of a car? It's in series with the door lock "motor", which might be
>>a solenoid or maybe a rotating motor.
>>
>>Is it possible that it is meant to lower or turn off power to the
>>mechanism if the circuit is left closed for some reason and the
>>solenoid would otherwise overheat?
>>
>>The symbol it uses for a thermistor is a resistor symbol in an
>>elongated circle, like a high school running track around the football
>>field. Is that the usual symbol for a thermistor.
>
>
> Well this says the symbol is retcangle with the stick figure of a
> hockey stick across it.
> http://www.best-microcontroller-projects.com/schematic-symbols.html
> What's with Toyota anyhow? Are they wrong about the symbol, or maybe
> they're wrong when they call it a thermistor!
>
Are you sure it isn't a circuit breaker? Those are BI-metal
and will open if they get too hot. They are also used in a
time applications in cars.

Jamie

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

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