http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair?hl=en
sci.electronics.repair@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Need help with switching power supply repair - 6 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/efc81d21dede85df?hl=en
* OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/4b33f31f667954a0?hl=en
* Electromagnetic spectrum – illusion and absurdity - 8 messages, 5 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/d90219824a5fe1f4?hl=en
* Rechargable batteries - 9 messages, 5 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/bed135e0d97b3dff?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Need help with switching power supply repair
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/efc81d21dede85df?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Sep 23 2011 7:10 pm
From: Franc Zabkar
On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 16:52:09 +0100, "Arfa Daily"
<arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> put finger to keyboard and composed:
>However, that then doesn't stack up with the
>secondary side voltages being steady, but wrong, and worse than wrong,
>unbalanced.
As has already been mentioned, there could be something wrong with the
OP's measurements. He states that "currently it is outputting +17 on
one output and somewhere between +22 and +30 on the other output."
One would expect that the +/-15V supplies would have identical
windings. Moreover, since they would be wound over the same core, then
one would expect that the two outputs should track each other
reasonably well, allowing for slight load differences.
Maybe there is a clue in the fact that the OP's measurements are both
positive. Could it be that he is uing the wrong 0V reference?
For example, if he is mistakenly using the -15V rail as the 0V
reference, then he would be measuring +15V for ground, and +30V for
the +15V rail, if the supply were working correctly.
- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.
== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Sat, Sep 24 2011 2:39 am
From: "Arfa Daily"
"Franc Zabkar" <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote in message
news:obeq77t7ek0ovdfbsu9mud8no2e1js8nul@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 16:52:09 +0100, "Arfa Daily"
> <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> put finger to keyboard and composed:
>
>>However, that then doesn't stack up with the
>>secondary side voltages being steady, but wrong, and worse than wrong,
>>unbalanced.
>
> As has already been mentioned, there could be something wrong with the
> OP's measurements. He states that "currently it is outputting +17 on
> one output and somewhere between +22 and +30 on the other output."
>
> One would expect that the +/-15V supplies would have identical
> windings. Moreover, since they would be wound over the same core, then
> one would expect that the two outputs should track each other
> reasonably well, allowing for slight load differences.
>
> Maybe there is a clue in the fact that the OP's measurements are both
> positive. Could it be that he is uing the wrong 0V reference?
>
> For example, if he is mistakenly using the -15V rail as the 0V
> reference, then he would be measuring +15V for ground, and +30V for
> the +15V rail, if the supply were working correctly.
>
> - Franc Zabkar
> --
Hmmm. That's a very valid point, Franc. Although possibly not specifically
in switchmode power supplies, I got the impression that the OP was
reasonably savvy in electronic repairs in general, so did not even consider
that the measurement technique could be in error. To be honest, I never even
noticed that he was declaring both to be positive ... :-\
Arfa
== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Sat, Sep 24 2011 9:55 am
From: Geo
On Wed, 21 Sep 2011 13:31:46 -0700 (PDT), senator richards
<rnewman36@gmail.com> 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.
>
I don't see that a fluctuating supply would cause a polarity reversal
on the -15v rail.
== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Sat, Sep 24 2011 11:19 am
From: Franc Zabkar
On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 01:56:37 +0100, "Arfa Daily"
<arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> put finger to keyboard and composed:
>About the only
>other thing that you could try, assuming that it uses a startup resistor
>from the 170v, is to disconnect the self-feed diode from the switching
>transformer. That way, you will force it to run from the startup supply
>only, just in case the self-run voltage is fluctuating, and interfering with
>your reading on the pwm chip's supply. Bear in mind though, that you can't
>run it for too long on the startup resistor, as it will get quite hot, being
>normally intended to supply current to the chip, only for as long as it
>takes the supply to fully start up and settle.
If the feed is coming directly from the +170V rail, then I can't see
that there will be much difference in the power dissipation of the
startup resistor after the power supply has settled into run mode.
For example, if we assume that the chip's supply voltages are 5V at
startup and 15V in run mode, the the voltage across the resistor will
vary between 165V and 155V.
- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.
== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Sat, Sep 24 2011 5:29 pm
From: "Arfa Daily"
"Franc Zabkar" <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote in message
news:ma7s775bkq5h737pgblve5n8tksndqf4tk@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 01:56:37 +0100, "Arfa Daily"
> <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> put finger to keyboard and composed:
>
>>About the only
>>other thing that you could try, assuming that it uses a startup resistor
>>from the 170v, is to disconnect the self-feed diode from the switching
>>transformer. That way, you will force it to run from the startup supply
>>only, just in case the self-run voltage is fluctuating, and interfering
>>with
>>your reading on the pwm chip's supply. Bear in mind though, that you can't
>>run it for too long on the startup resistor, as it will get quite hot,
>>being
>>normally intended to supply current to the chip, only for as long as it
>>takes the supply to fully start up and settle.
>
> If the feed is coming directly from the +170V rail, then I can't see
> that there will be much difference in the power dissipation of the
> startup resistor after the power supply has settled into run mode.
>
> For example, if we assume that the chip's supply voltages are 5V at
> startup and 15V in run mode, the the voltage across the resistor will
> vary between 165V and 155V.
>
> - Franc Zabkar
> --
Typically, the startup supply doesn't come *directly* from the high voltage
rail, It is normally fed via a diode, and the self-powering rail is arranged
to be a higher voltage than the startup supply. This results in the diode
feeding the startup supply, to become reverse biased once the supply fully
starts, which then results in the current draw from that supply reducing to
as good as zero, and thus likewise dropping the power dissipation in the
startup resistor to virtually zero.
Arfa
== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Sat, Sep 24 2011 5:32 pm
From: "Arfa Daily"
"Geo" <nhhu-o3hu@dea.spamcon.org> wrote in message
news:vp2s77dq27rf3h4is6td7n8mov44rsbqt5@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 21 Sep 2011 13:31:46 -0700 (PDT), senator richards
> <rnewman36@gmail.com> 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.
>>
> I don't see that a fluctuating supply would cause a polarity reversal
> on the -15v rail.
>
No, you're right, it wouldn't, which is why Franc and I elsewhere in the
thread, have now entered into the discussion of how exactly the OP is taking
his measurements i.e. what point he is using as his ground, for a start.
Arfa
==============================================================================
TOPIC: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/4b33f31f667954a0?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Sep 24 2011 3:02 am
From: "Arfa Daily"
"Jeff Liebermann" <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote in message
news:cofq77href6m5ud4mp64bp5vbqh5o6uglf@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 11:21:50 -0500, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov>
> wrote:
>
>>the manufacture of CFLs produces much more pollution than making
>>incandescent lamps. it probably outweighs any savings from the use of CFLs
>>over I-lamps.
>>you don't need -any- mercury in making I-lamps,nor do you need phosphors.
>
> True. Dumping 4 tons of mercury into landfills every year is not a
> good thing. However, to put that in perspective, the coal that we use
> to generate most of our electricity has an estimated 75 tons of
> mercury mixed in, each year, two thirds of which is belched into the
> atmosphere. If you include the mercury emissions from generating the
> power needed to run an incandescent lamp, the CFL lamp dumps 1/4th the
> mercury into the environment as the incandescent.
> <http://www.cflknowhow.org/cfl-mercury-information.html>
>
> Permit me to point out that US domestic and commerical electricity
> consumption has been increasing quite constantly at the rate of about
> 1.5%/year. If there were any energy savings from the existing CFL
> lamps in service, it would have appeared as a drop in the consumption
> trend. It's a bit tricky to use, but you can dig the history and
> trends out of:
> <http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/tablebrowser/#release=AEO2011>
>
> Tungsten, as used in incandescent lamps, may not be all that
> environmentally correct:
> <http://pubs.acs.org/cen/science/87/8703sci2.html>
> There's not much known about the effects of tungsten in the
> environment, but it is becoming yet another thing to worry about.
>
> I wouldn't worry much about phosphorus as we're scheduled to run out
> in 50-100 years.
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_phosphorus>
>
> --
> Jeff Liebermann
But as I said, coal fired plants have been declining over the years in
Europe - for instance, we operate just 14 here in the UK now. France has
none, I believe. Apparently, the vast majority of increase in CO2 emissions,
and use of coal to fire power plants, is coming from India and China. These
are both technologically competent nations, who are ignoring any
responsibility they might have to reduce emissions. So why does that mean
that I have to suffer a 'pissing into the wind' replacement for technology
that I am happy with, so they can carry on regardless ?
Arfa
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Sep 24 2011 5:03 pm
From: "Trevor Wilson"
Arfa Daily wrote:
>>> Yes. This is kind of my point. And when I was saying that
>>> 'background' items like shipping costs are politely ignored, I was
>>> referring to the multiple shipping operations that are required for
>>> the many components in a CFL, and the many raw materials contained
>>> in those components, just to get all the bits and pieces from the
>>> individual specialist manufacturers, to the places where the lamps
>>> are assembled. In the case of an incandescent lamp, we are talking a
>>> few components, simply made from a few raw materials. With a CFL, we
>>> are talking semiconductors comprising silicon, dopant chemicals,
>>> plastic, metal. Capacitors comprising metal foil, plastic, rubber,
>>> maybe paper, metal leads and other chemicals in the electros. Coils
>>> comprising processed iron powder, copper wire, insulation, copper
>>> foil, epoxy adhesive, steel leadouts. Then there's the complex glass
>>> tube, and the chemical phosphors and mercury vapour inside it.
>>> Tungsten electrodes. Then the pcb material that its all mounted on.
>>> Lots of soldered joints. And then the plastic enclosure for the
>>> ballast. And then the 'normal' bits that an incandescent has anyway.
>>> Every single one of those components, and the manufacturing
>>> processes for *their* component parts, involves energy input for
>>> the process. They all need workers who have to be moved from their
>>> homes and back again each day, They have to be heated / cooled, fed
>>> and watered, and then lit as well. And when they've made their bits
>>> of the lamp, these have to be shipped on somewhere else. These are
>>> the energy costs that the general public are never made aware of.
>>> If they were, they might start to question the perceived wisdom
>>> that they've been fed, that these things are actually 'green'.
>>
>>
>> **Indeed. I just did a little research and found that some of these
>> issues HAVE been examined. The total manufacturing energy input for
>> a typical CFL is around 1.7kWhr. The total manufacturing energy
>> input for a typical incandescent is around 0.3kWhr. Considerably
>> less. Or is it?
>
>
> The thing is, there are so many components to a CFL, and so many
> processes to make those components, and so many processes to
> extracting, refining and making appropriate the constituents *of*
> those components, that I think it is probably an impossible task to
> analyse the total energy budget of making one of these things, with
> any accuracy.
**I believe that may well be an over-statement. At some point, we have to be
able to place some trust in those who do their investigations into such
things. Anyway, let's assume that the investigators have made an error
amounting to 100%. Even with such an error, CFLs leave ICs in their dust.
Let's assume that the investigators are completely inept and they have made
an error amounting to 1,000%. Even with an energy input figure of 17kW, CFLs
leave ICs for dead.
There will probably also be a degree of deliberate
> distortion downwards to those figures by the greenies that would
> produce them, to make them look better.
**You're making the assumption that those who have investigated the matter,
have an axe to grind either way. Bad assumption. If you can supply your
alternate data, please feel free to do so. Here is my reference:
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Compact_Fluorescent_Lighting_(CFL)_Downsides
On the other hand, an
> incandescent bulb uses - what - seven, eight maybe components, each
> of which could be totally accurately pinned down on their production
> energy costs. Bear in mind that the processes to produce the
> components are also very simple and straightforward, unlike the
> processes required to make the components of a CFL.
**Your point being?
It's not impossible to pin down the cost of manufacturing the relatively
small number of components in a CFL. Car manufacturers routinely do just
that, for what is a dramatically more complex device.
>
>
>>
>> Let's put that into some kind of perspective:
>>
>> A typical 100 Watt IC lasts for 1,000 hours (at best).
>> A typical 15 Watt CFL lasts for 5,000 hours (I've certainly
>> exceeding that figure quite comfortably).
>
> I have to say that in my experience, you have been extremely lucky to
> get that sort of life from CFLs.
**Luck has nothing to do with it. I only buy quality CFLs and I have 19 of
the suckers in service. If I had (say) 2 in service and not experienced a
failure, then I might agree with you. I have NINETEEN of them in and around
my home. And, FWIW: several of them are not installed according to
manufacturer's instructions. They are surviving nicely.
I have used all sorts over the
> years, from cheap to expensive, and have never obtained anything like
> that length of service from any of them, with the exception of some
> very early ones that I installed in a day nursery that we once owned.
> They were Dulux globe CFLs and very expensive. We owned that nursery
> for twelve years, and most of them were still going when we sold it,
> so I don't dispute that it is possible to make long-lasting CFLs. I
> just don't think that overall, taken across the whole raft of
> qualities and costs, they are doing it any more.
**I confess that I have not purchased a CFL for several years, so I can't
confirm. The damned things are so incredibly long lasting that I simply have
not had to purchase replacements. In fact, I fully expect LEDs to be
appropriately priced by the time I need to make any changes.
However, I have a
> lot of low voltage halogen downlighters in my house, that I put in
> more than ten years ago. Of the eight located above the stairwell,
> and the further five along the upstairs corridor, only one has failed
> in all that time, and that was only a few months ago. Maybe, like you
> with your CFLs, I have been lucky with these halogens.
**Perhaps. I swapped out all my iron transformers for SMPS some years ago,
to increase efficiency. The SMPS seem to deliver a pretty accurate Voltage,
so I doubt that is an issue. As an aside, my mother has a number of 12 Volt
halogens in her kitchen. I receive at least 2 calls per year to replace
blown lamps. I believe that low Voltage halogen downlights are an utterly
evil blight on society. They are OK for directing light into specific areas,
but are hopeless at lighting a space, relatively inneficient and they don't
last very long.
Here in the
> UK, there have been governmental drives to push CFLs, by heavily
> subsidising the cost of them, and in some cases, almost giving them
> away in supermarkets, and in others *actually* giving them away.
**There are no subsidies in Australia for CFls, though the government did
give the things away for a couple of years. I snagged a few, but found the
colour temperature horrible and the lamps were clearly cheap rubbish. The
Philips lamps I buy are regularly sold for around $5.00 each. That's for a
23 Watt lamp, that, IME, has a life of AT LEAST 3,500 hours (I expect at
least double that figure) and, after 6 years of operation, is registering
less than a 5% fall in light output. Whichever way you slice it, that is
exceptional value for money.
With
> the best will in the world, these are cheap crap, so that is what the
> general public are having foisted on them as a result of the drive to
> try to get people to actually want them, and is probably why the
> general experience is that they don't last anything like as long as
> the figures that they would try to have us believe. Also, those
> figures are only good - if at all- when the ballast is properly
> cooled, which means having the lamp in service the 'right' way up.
> Unfortunately, many lamp fixtures that they go in, don't do this, and
> luminaires enclose them completely. Incandescents didn't care about
> this, of course.
**Perhaps. In my last home, I used a 150 Watt IC lamp and managed to do
serious damage to the plaster ceiling in the process. The fitting survived
fine, as it was designed to cope. The plaster was not. A CFL solved the
problem.
>
>
>>
>> Over 5,000 hours of use, the CFL has consumed 75kWhr + 1.7kWhr =
>> 76.7kWhr. IOW: The energy cost of manufacture is almost
>> insignificant, even though is a little higher than 5 incandescents.
>>
>> Over 5,000 hours, the IC lamp has consumed 500kWhr + 1.5kWhr =
>> 501.5kWhr. I would argue that the energy cost of manufacture is a
>> spurious
>> argument.
>
> Only possibly, if you feel you are able to trust the figures for
> manufacturing energy budget.
**Do the math with a figure of 17kWhr. The CFL is STILL ahead by a country
kilometre.
As I have said, I do not because of the
> complexity of arriving at a figure. Plus you also need to factor in
> the full energy cost of recycling the toxins contained within it at
> the end of its service life. There is zero cost for this with an
> incandescent, as it does not contain anything potentially harmful to
> the environment.
**Not entirely true, but you point is well made. CFLs MUST be properly
disposed of. Again, this is not an impossibly costly exercise. Thos whacky
Swedes managed 75% recycling back in 2007.
http://www.enerlin.enea.it/outcomes/rep_recycling.pdf
Like all such things, the rates of recylcing will increase and the cost will
decrease over time.
>
>
>>
>> The pollution cost is another matter entirely. During operation, coal
>> fired generators (like those here in Australia) emit mercury. A
>> typical 100 Watt lamp will cause the emission of around 10mg of
>> mercury over it's life. 5 lamps (5,000 hours) will cause the release
>> of 50mg or mercury. By comparison, CFLs will cause the release of
>> around 7.5mg of mercury + 4mg of mercury contained within the
>> envelope. If the lamp is disposed of correctly, then the total
>> mercury release will be 7.5mg. Far less than that of IC lamps. Other
>> nations, that employ different power generation schemes will see
>> different results.
>
> Again, these figures are only meaningful if you genuinely achieve a
> figure of 5000 hours across the board. And that is the important
> thing. *All* CFLs need to achieve that figure for the calculations to
> be valid, and that ain't never gonna happen, as long as there are
> cheapo Chinese ones flooding the market. In any case, in Europe, coal
> fired power stations have been on the decline for many years. Most
> are now gas or nuclear
**Philips cite 6,000 hours for their lamps. Most manufacturers of IC lamps
cite an average of 750 - 1,000 hours for their standard IC lamps. These can
be made to last longer, but at the cost of efficiency. Fundamentally,
however, I take issue with your constant reference to cheap, crappy lamps. I
have CONSISTENTLY stated that I refer only to quality lamps (like Philips).
It would be like you trying to argue that automobiles are fundamentally
unsafe, unreliable and uneconomical, by using ONLY Tata automobiles as your
reference. You should be using Toyota, Honda, Mecedes, Hyundai and the
others as part of your reference.
No more talk of cheap, shitty lamps please. Whilst they are are available
and fools will buy them, they are not representative of state of the art in
quality or longevity.
>
>
>>
>> And this does not take into pollution created at the point of
>> manufacture. That is an issue that should be dealt with locally.
>>
>>>
>>> If people want to use CFLs in the belief - mistaken in my opinion -
>>> that they are in some way helping the world to use less energy, then
>>> that's fine.
>>
>> **It's not a mistaken belief. It's a fact. CFLs use FAR less energy
>> than incandescents. From cradle to grave. Vastly, hugely less energy.
>
>
> On the face of it, they appear to, and as I said before, that is the
> *only* angle that's been exploited by the greenies, to try to gain
> them widespread acceptance.
**Incorrect. ALL green groups have expressed reservations about the proper
disposal of CFLs.
Personally, I believe that the situation
> is far less clear than this rather simplistic assumption, when you
> factor in the *true* costs.
**Fair enough. Cite these "true" costs you speak of. Numbers please.
Almost certainly, they use less energy if
> you accept the simple picture, get the projected life from them, and
> believe the equivalence figures for light output, that they put on
> the boxes. And again, on this score, I understand that they are now
> trying to legislate over here, to mark the boxes in lumens or some
> such, probably because users are starting to doubt the quoted
> equivalence figures. In reality, if you have a genuine like for like
> in terms of light output, factor in the *real* costs of producing,
> transporting, and disposing of properly at the end, and get the more
> typical average service life of 2000 hours from them, then the saving
> becomes much less significant, and for me, insufficient reason to ban
> me from using incandescents.
**My CFLs are averaging far more than 2,000 hours. Do you have any data to
supplort your notion that QUALITY CFLs manage an average of 2,000 hours? Are
you aware of any consumer legal action against Philips? After Philips cite a
6,000 hour life for their product. Here in Australia, the penalties are
severe for companies engaged in misleading advertising of that nature.
Recently, LG was penalised several hundred thousand Dollars for making
misleading claims about the efficiency of their refrigerators. I'm certain
the legislators would be happy to tackle Philips, if you can supply solid
supporting evidence to back your claims (about QUALITY CFLs).
>
>
>>
>> If it's really the case, then CFLs will win out the day
>>> in the end.
>>
>> **By a massive margin, in fact.
>
>
> Distorted by the fact that CFLs are effectively government sponsored,
**Not in Australia. They compete in the market, like any other product. They
cost approximately 5 times as much as an equivalent IC lamp. They last 5
times longer and use 1/5th as much energy.
his might prove an intgeresting read for you:
> and that I cannot buy the bulbs I want any more, because they have
> banned them to make sure that I can't. If it was still incandescents
> vs CFLs on a level playing field, the take up of CFLs would be much
> less, which was the reason in the first place that they found it
> necessary to legislate to force people to use them.
**I agree with that. Most people are, fundamentally, greedy, self-serving,
fools. They'll choose the cheapest, upfront solution, without regard to
longevity or running costs.
>
>
>>
>> But I think that it is utterly wrong that the existing
>>> technology has been banned completely on thin evidence and a less
>>> than truthful declaration of the energy required to make and dispose
>>> of the things, the only factor being pushed, being the lower energy
>>> consumption when they are in use, as though this is the be-all and
>>> end-all of their right to exist, and to be forced on us.
>>
>> **Your opinion is duly noted. That comment is a political issue. I
>> recall EXACTLY the same arguments were made, here in Australia, when
>> leaded petrol was legislated out of existence. I susepct that, in 20
>> years, when we look back at this whole discussion, it will appear to
>> be a non-event. More efficient lighting will be the standard,
>> incandescents will be relegated to specialised applications (oven
>> lighting, etc) and the whole issue will be viewed for what it really
>> is - a storm in a teacup.
>
>
> I fail to see how you equate leaded petrol to the situation with
> CFLs. It is a different issue entirely, with very clear motives and
> outcomes. You would have to be brain dead not to understand that
> putting huge quantities of lead into the atmosphere at ground level
> and in a form that people could breathe, is bad in every way.
**As is feeding excessive CO2 into the atmosphere. Too much CO2 is causing
excessive warming of this planet.
> Removing lead from petrol had little if any impact on the general
> public, because it was already possible to build engines that had no
> requirement for lead in their fuel, without compromising performance.
**That was not the case here in Australia. Manufacturers had to alter their
production systems, costing millions of Dollars to cope. Most automobiles
suffered a performance fall when switched to unleaded fuel. Those who
retained their leaded fuel autos have to use expensive additives to
compensate.
> It was, unlike CFLs, a classic example of a genuine *replacement*
> technology, which suffered no disadvantages over the technology that
> it was replacing.
**Not here in Australia. Costs rose for buyers.
There was not even any need to challenge this bit
> of legislation, because the advantages were very clear to see in
> large cities the world over. Even if you clung on to your car that
> needed leaded petrol, this was still available at the pumps for some
> years after unleaded came in, and after it was finally removed from
> sale, there was still LRP (lead replacement petrol) available for
> some long time after that. Finally, if you still wanted to run your
> vintage engine, this could be achieved in most cases by the simple
> expedient of altering the ignition timing, and in the worst case,
> reducing the compression ratio a little, by fitting a thicker head
> gasket.
**Incorrect. Leaded fuel vehicles require an additive to allow correct
operation of valves (seats). The simple expedient of altering timing is only
for making up for differences in octane, not lead.
CFLs are nothing like this. They are a substitute technology
> which is unable to replace incandescents in a number of areas - such
> as decorative light fittings - and having many other shortcomings in
> comparison to incandescents, in exchange for the dubious possibility
> that they in some way help to save the planet.
**Specialised IC lamps are still available in Australia. I don't know about
Europe. Fancy lamps, oven lamps and others are still available. For those
who refuse to change, halogen replacements are still available.
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> The point that Trevor makes about aircon to mitigate the heat output
>>> of incandescents, holds no water here in Northern Europe. Unlike in
>>> Australia, it seldom becomes hot enough up here for more than a few
>>> days a year, that aircon is needed. And that is only in the summer,
>>> when it's light for 16 hours of the day anyway, so there's not much
>>> lighting being used. OTOH, for much of the year, it is cool or cold
>>> enough to require heating in houses, and in this case, the complete
>>> opposite of Trevor's premise, is true, in that the heat output from
>>> the incandescent light bulbs, serves to mitigate heat input
>>> requirement, from the central heating system.
>>
>> **So? Northern Europe is not the whole world. Vast swathes of this
>> planet consume vast amounts of energy for air conditioning. Northern
>> Europe is a small player in that respect. Worse, CO2 emissions from
>> Northern Europe impact on those regions where a small amount of
>> warming will lead to serious problems. We only have one place that
>> we can all live. We all need to work together.
>
>
>
> I'm having a bit of trouble picking the bones out of that one,
> Trevor. You made a very clear statement that a disadvantage of
> incandescents was that they generated heat that needed the use of
> aircon plant to remove. I merely stated that this is not the case in
> Northern Europe, where aircon is not common in the first place, and
> where the exact opposite of what you contend, is true. In the case of
> what you are stating, we are talking a double whammy in that the
> lights waste energy in producing heat, and then your energy-thirsty
> aircon plant has to be used to waste a bit more removing that heat.
> Here, the heat is not 'wasted' for much of the year, as it partially
> mitigates the required heating input from the central heating. 50
> watts of heat pouring off a lightbulb into my living room, is 50
> watts that my heating system has not got to put into my radiators. I
> fail to see what your point is regarding Northern Europe against
> 'vast swathes of the planet etc'. The population density of Northern
> Europe is much higher overall than that of many of these vast swathes
> that you refer to, so the fact that we don't use huge amounts of
> energy for aircon, equates to a much lower energy requirement per
> person, taken overall.
**Apart from those places where geo-thermal energy is common, or
temperatures are too low, heat pumps (aka: air conditioners) are a far more
efficient method of heating a home than resistive heating.
>
>>
>> And, just to reinforce the point: I do not consider lighting to be a
>> major problem in power consumption (and, therefore, CO2 emissions).
>> Nor do I consider appliances that use auxiliary power to be a major
>> issue either.
>
>
> So why do you support the banning of a proven simple technology,
> which did the job of providing even-intensity pleasing-quality light,
> to everyone's satisfaction ??
**Points:
* IC lamps are NOT to everyone's satisfaction. I have ONLY used fluoro
lighting in my workshop for the last 40 years.
* IC lamps are unreliable and wasteful of energy.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Electromagnetic spectrum – illusion and absurdity
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/d90219824a5fe1f4?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 8 ==
Date: Sat, Sep 24 2011 6:52 am
From: "William Sommerwerck"
"sorin" <sorincosofret@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:28a077e5-f43e-44c5-8960-31ea6b6b92d0@i2g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Electromagnetic spectrum – illusion and absurdity
> Classical electrodynamics is build up on a postulate of
> electromagnetic waves emission by accelerated charges. This
> postulate can be ruled out with simple experiment performed home.
> A simple cut off experiment can show that a beam of electrons
> accelerated in a cathode tube do not emit any electromagnetic
> waves during acceleration.
I hope readers won't take any of this seriously. This guy simply doesn't
know what he's tal;king about.
== 2 of 8 ==
Date: Sat, Sep 24 2011 7:32 am
From: Jamie
William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "sorin" <sorincosofret@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:28a077e5-f43e-44c5-8960-31ea6b6b92d0@i2g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> Electromagnetic spectrum � illusion and absurdity
>
>
>>Classical electrodynamics is build up on a postulate of
>>electromagnetic waves emission by accelerated charges. This
>>postulate can be ruled out with simple experiment performed home.
>>A simple cut off experiment can show that a beam of electrons
>>accelerated in a cathode tube do not emit any electromagnetic
>>waves during acceleration.
>
>
> I hope readers won't take any of this seriously. This guy simply doesn't
> know what he's tal;king about.
>
>
It was once absurd to think the world was round.
Jamie
== 3 of 8 ==
Date: Sat, Sep 24 2011 2:27 pm
From: PlainBill@yawhoo.com
On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 10:32:29 -0400, Jamie
<jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_@charter.net> wrote:
>William Sommerwerck wrote:
>
>> "sorin" <sorincosofret@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:28a077e5-f43e-44c5-8960-31ea6b6b92d0@i2g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>> Electromagnetic spectrum � illusion and absurdity
>>
>>
>>>Classical electrodynamics is build up on a postulate of
>>>electromagnetic waves emission by accelerated charges. This
>>>postulate can be ruled out with simple experiment performed home.
>>>A simple cut off experiment can show that a beam of electrons
>>>accelerated in a cathode tube do not emit any electromagnetic
>>>waves during acceleration.
>>
>>
>> I hope readers won't take any of this seriously. This guy simply doesn't
>> know what he's tal;king about.
>>
>>
>It was once absurd to think the world was round.
>
>Jamie
>
AH, but in the third century BC, the Greek scholar Eratosthenes
calculated the circumference and axial tilt of the Earth. Clearly,
over 2000 years ago INTELLIGENT people understood that the world is
round. The fact that some fools did not accept that is immaterial.
Your attempt to validate the rantings of a fool by using an invalid
argument places you at the same intellectual level as the fool.
PlainBill
== 4 of 8 ==
Date: Sat, Sep 24 2011 3:16 pm
From: Jamie
PlainBill@yawhoo.com wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 10:32:29 -0400, Jamie
> <jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_@charter.net> wrote:
>
>
>>William Sommerwerck wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"sorin" <sorincosofret@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:28a077e5-f43e-44c5-8960-31ea6b6b92d0@i2g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>>>Electromagnetic spectrum � illusion and absurdity
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Classical electrodynamics is build up on a postulate of
>>>>electromagnetic waves emission by accelerated charges. This
>>>>postulate can be ruled out with simple experiment performed home.
>>>>A simple cut off experiment can show that a beam of electrons
>>>>accelerated in a cathode tube do not emit any electromagnetic
>>>>waves during acceleration.
>>>
>>>
>>>I hope readers won't take any of this seriously. This guy simply doesn't
>>>know what he's tal;king about.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>It was once absurd to think the world was round.
>>
>>Jamie
>>
>
> AH, but in the third century BC, the Greek scholar Eratosthenes
> calculated the circumference and axial tilt of the Earth. Clearly,
> over 2000 years ago INTELLIGENT people understood that the world is
> round. The fact that some fools did not accept that is immaterial.
>
> Your attempt to validate the rantings of a fool by using an invalid
> argument places you at the same intellectual level as the fool.
>
> PlainBill
And if you could prove the ranting lunatic was wrong, you wouldn't be
here. So welcome aboard with the rest of the fools.
Jamie
== 5 of 8 ==
Date: Sat, Sep 24 2011 4:04 pm
From: Jeff Liebermann
On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 10:32:29 -0400, Jamie
<jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_@charter.net> wrote:
>It was once absurd to think the world was round.
>Jamie
The earth is not round. It's an oblate spheroid.
--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
== 6 of 8 ==
Date: Sat, Sep 24 2011 4:31 pm
From: Jamie
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 10:32:29 -0400, Jamie
> <jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_@charter.net> wrote:
>
>
>>It was once absurd to think the world was round.
>>Jamie
>
>
> The earth is not round. It's an oblate spheroid.
>
Like global warming is a lie? Because the sun
only heats one side at a time?
I saw that some where.
Jamie
== 7 of 8 ==
Date: Sat, Sep 24 2011 4:19 pm
From: Jeff Liebermann
On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 14:27:50 -0700, PlainBill@yawhoo.com wrote:
>AH, but in the third century BC, the Greek scholar Eratosthenes
>calculated the circumference and axial tilt of the Earth. Clearly,
>over 2000 years ago INTELLIGENT people understood that the world is
>round. The fact that some fools did not accept that is immaterial.
The problem is that prophets and scholars are not recognized in their
own time or place. One has to be dead to be appreciated. In the days
when peer reviews were conducted by the church, the publish or perish
dichotomy highly favored perish. In an effort to keep friend close,
and enemies even closer, the church made it mandatory for scholars and
teachers to join the clergy. For example, Isaac Newton was an
ordained minister.
>Your attempt to validate the rantings of a fool by using an invalid
>argument places you at the same intellectual level as the fool.
I don't think it's proper to be judged by the company we keep,
especially since I've frequently taken the unpopular point of view for
no better reason entertainment value. In the USA, we tend to attend
the political speeches of those we agree with. That's boring. In the
UK, it's popular to attend those of the opposition and heckle. That
makes for a far more lively debate.
It's much the same with science. We tent to read publications that
follow our beliefs, and ignore those that are opposed. That's being
rather narrow minded as much important science has come from obscure
and unpopular places. Similarly, defending an unpopular point of view
is a great way of understanding the topic clearly from all possible
positions.
Bottom line:
Criticize the merits of the argument, not the person advocating it.
--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
== 8 of 8 ==
Date: Sat, Sep 24 2011 4:35 pm
From: "Michael A. Terrell"
Jamie wrote:
>
> Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> > On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 10:32:29 -0400, Jamie
> > <jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_@charter.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>It was once absurd to think the world was round.
> >>Jamie
> >
> >
> > The earth is not round. It's an oblate spheroid.
> >
> Like global warming is a lie? Because the sun
> only heats one side at a time?
>
> I saw that some where.
Likely on one of your many drug induced trips, Maynard.
--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Rechargable batteries
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/bed135e0d97b3dff?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 9 ==
Date: Sat, Sep 24 2011 10:06 am
From: Wilfred Xavier Pickles
Forgive my lack of knowledge re batteries ...
I have a Panasonic cordless phone (KX-TGA101S) using Pan. AAA MiMH rated at "Min 550 mAh".
Are these appropriate as replacements:
and would they work OK with the Pan. cordless charger?
Thx,
Will
== 2 of 9 ==
Date: Sat, Sep 24 2011 12:18 pm
From: news@jecarter.us
On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 12:06:48 -0500, Wilfred Xavier Pickles
<barrel.full@screwmail.com> wrote:
>
>Forgive my lack of knowledge re batteries ...
>
>I have a Panasonic cordless phone (KX-TGA101S) using Pan. AAA MiMH rated at "Min 550 mAh".
>
>Are these appropriate as replacements:
>
>http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000XSG300/ref=ox_sc_act_title_1?t=slicinc-20&tag=slicinc-20&ie=UTF8&m=ATVPDKIKX0DER
>
>and would they work OK with the Pan. cordless charger?
>
>Thx,
>Will
Your phone probably uses a pre-wired battey pack, not separate loose
cells. Take the phone to Radio Shack or Batteries Plus and get the
proper battery pack for it.
John
== 3 of 9 ==
Date: Sat, Sep 24 2011 12:27 pm
From: "Ian Field"
"Wilfred Xavier Pickles" <barrel.full@screwmail.com> wrote in message
news:if3s77lrcspli5ukqd292dtcf2ddchl65k@4ax.com...
>
> Forgive my lack of knowledge re batteries ...
>
> I have a Panasonic cordless phone (KX-TGA101S) using Pan. AAA MiMH rated
> at "Min 550 mAh".
>
> Are these appropriate as replacements:
As I only gave the page a cursory glance I may have missed where it said
"NiMh" - OTOH they look like the rechargeable alkalines which can only be
recharged a *very limited* number of times and only then if you never
discharge them flat, and only with a special charger.
Make sure you buy NiMh cells, it doesn't matter if the Ah capacity is higher
than the originals (technology keeps improving) anyway, most makers claim
NiMh are immune to memory effect. They'll just take longer to reach full
charge and last longer before next charge.
As long as the old cells haven't failed S/C, put them in a fast NiMh charger
and then run them down in a (filament bulb) flashlight - repeat
charge/discharge cycle a few times, you may see some improvement.
== 4 of 9 ==
Date: Sat, Sep 24 2011 1:04 pm
From: "Charlie"
"Ian Field" <gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:taqfq.711$Z04.452@newsfe03.ams2...
>
> "Wilfred Xavier Pickles" <barrel.full@screwmail.com> wrote in message
> news:if3s77lrcspli5ukqd292dtcf2ddchl65k@4ax.com...
>>
>> Forgive my lack of knowledge re batteries ...
>>
>> I have a Panasonic cordless phone (KX-TGA101S) using Pan. AAA MiMH rated
>> at "Min 550 mAh".
>>
>> Are these appropriate as replacements:
>
> As I only gave the page a cursory glance I may have missed where it said
> "NiMh" - OTOH they look like the rechargeable alkalines which can only be
> recharged a *very limited* number of times and only then if you never
> discharge them flat, and only with a special charger.
>
> Make sure you buy NiMh cells, it doesn't matter if the Ah capacity is
> higher than the originals (technology keeps improving) anyway, most makers
> claim NiMh are immune to memory effect. They'll just take longer to reach
> full charge and last longer before next charge.
>
> As long as the old cells haven't failed S/C, put them in a fast NiMh
> charger and then run them down in a (filament bulb) flashlight - repeat
> charge/discharge cycle a few times, you may see some improvement.
Zoom in to the Amazon image and you will see NIMH in the lower left corner.
== 5 of 9 ==
Date: Sat, Sep 24 2011 1:33 pm
From: "Ian Field"
"Charlie" <left@thestation.com> wrote in message
news:j5ld3o$k0q$1@dont-email.me...
>
> "Ian Field" <gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:taqfq.711$Z04.452@newsfe03.ams2...
>>
>> "Wilfred Xavier Pickles" <barrel.full@screwmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:if3s77lrcspli5ukqd292dtcf2ddchl65k@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> Forgive my lack of knowledge re batteries ...
>>>
>>> I have a Panasonic cordless phone (KX-TGA101S) using Pan. AAA MiMH rated
>>> at "Min 550 mAh".
>>>
>>> Are these appropriate as replacements:
>>
>> As I only gave the page a cursory glance I may have missed where it said
>> "NiMh" - OTOH they look like the rechargeable alkalines which can only be
>> recharged a *very limited* number of times and only then if you never
>> discharge them flat, and only with a special charger.
>>
>> Make sure you buy NiMh cells, it doesn't matter if the Ah capacity is
>> higher than the originals (technology keeps improving) anyway, most
>> makers claim NiMh are immune to memory effect. They'll just take longer
>> to reach full charge and last longer before next charge.
>>
>> As long as the old cells haven't failed S/C, put them in a fast NiMh
>> charger and then run them down in a (filament bulb) flashlight - repeat
>> charge/discharge cycle a few times, you may see some improvement.
> Zoom in to the Amazon image and you will see NIMH in the lower left
> corner.
So it does <puts microscope back on shelf>.
== 6 of 9 ==
Date: Sat, Sep 24 2011 1:37 pm
From: "Ian Field"
<news@jecarter.us> wrote in message
news:g4bs77poslpkdef0vim7h1shi0du3vqu2s@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 12:06:48 -0500, Wilfred Xavier Pickles
> <barrel.full@screwmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Forgive my lack of knowledge re batteries ...
>>
>>I have a Panasonic cordless phone (KX-TGA101S) using Pan. AAA MiMH rated
>>at "Min 550 mAh".
>>
>>Are these appropriate as replacements:
>>
>>http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000XSG300/ref=ox_sc_act_title_1?t=slicinc-20&tag=slicinc-20&ie=UTF8&m=ATVPDKIKX0DER
>>
>>and would they work OK with the Pan. cordless charger?
>>
>>Thx,
>>Will
>
> Your phone probably uses a pre-wired battey pack, not separate loose
> cells. Take the phone to Radio Shack or Batteries Plus and get the
> proper battery pack for it.
My Panasonic cordless uses bog standard AAA NiMh cells. Quite handy really,
since I could give them the first time full charge in 1 hour in the fast
charger instead of over night in the phone.
== 7 of 9 ==
Date: Sat, Sep 24 2011 4:25 pm
From: Wilfred Xavier Pickles
On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 20:27:12 +0100, "Ian Field" <gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>Make sure you buy NiMh cells, it doesn't matter if the Ah capacity is higher
>than the originals ...
Part of the reason I had to ask was because I couldn't *find* a mAh
rating on the Amazon page.
Anybody see one?
Will
== 8 of 9 ==
Date: Sat, Sep 24 2011 5:19 pm
From: "Arfa Daily"
"Ian Field" <gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:taqfq.711$Z04.452@newsfe03.ams2...
>
> "Wilfred Xavier Pickles" <barrel.full@screwmail.com> wrote in message
> news:if3s77lrcspli5ukqd292dtcf2ddchl65k@4ax.com...
>>
>> Forgive my lack of knowledge re batteries ...
>>
>> I have a Panasonic cordless phone (KX-TGA101S) using Pan. AAA MiMH rated
>> at "Min 550 mAh".
>>
>> Are these appropriate as replacements:
>
> As I only gave the page a cursory glance I may have missed where it said
> "NiMh" - OTOH they look like the rechargeable alkalines which can only be
> recharged a *very limited* number of times and only then if you never
> discharge them flat, and only with a special charger.
>
> Make sure you buy NiMh cells, it doesn't matter if the Ah capacity is
> higher than the originals (technology keeps improving) anyway, most makers
> claim NiMh are immune to memory effect. They'll just take longer to reach
> full charge and last longer before next charge.
>
> As long as the old cells haven't failed S/C, put them in a fast NiMh
> charger and then run them down in a (filament bulb) flashlight - repeat
> charge/discharge cycle a few times, you may see some improvement.
>
It says that they are NiMH at the the bottom left of the card, and it
indicates on the battery body that they are 2400mAH, so if the phone does
use individual cells, then they should do the job ok
Arfa
== 9 of 9 ==
Date: Sat, Sep 24 2011 5:23 pm
From: "Arfa Daily"
"Wilfred Xavier Pickles" <barrel.full@screwmail.com> wrote in message
news:aips779mo5jsv45lmg9kl1dof3f5ll2oo3@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 20:27:12 +0100, "Ian Field"
> <gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>>Make sure you buy NiMh cells, it doesn't matter if the Ah capacity is
>>higher
>>than the originals ...
>
> Part of the reason I had to ask was because I couldn't *find* a mAh
> rating on the Amazon page.
>
> Anybody see one?
>
> Will
It looks like it says "DX2400" on the battery body. 2400 mAH is a typical
value for modern NiMH cells, so I would guess that is what the "2400" is
referring to
Arfa
==============================================================================
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
No Response to "sci.electronics.repair - 25 new messages in 4 topics - digest"
Post a Comment