sci.electronics.repair@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

* way OT: thrashing swap file in W2K - 6 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/42a5df77841d8177?hl=en
* Rechargable batteries - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/bed135e0d97b3dff?hl=en
* OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors - 16 messages, 8 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/4b33f31f667954a0?hl=en
* Dark strip on LCD... - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/131fd0ca19572f97?hl=en
* Electromagnetic spectrum – illusion and absurdity - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/d90219824a5fe1f4?hl=en

==============================================================================
TOPIC: way OT: thrashing swap file in W2K
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/42a5df77841d8177?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Sun, Sep 25 2011 10:57 am
From: "William Sommerwerck"

"Ralph Wade Phillips" <news@philent.biz> wrote in message
\news:j5nino$804$1@dont-email.me...

> There's two rather critical bits of information missing here.
> 1) What's the PHYSICAL memory installed?
> 2) What's the TOTAL COMMIT after it's been thrashing like this?

> I'd bet that you've got a TC of about 2 to 3 times (possibly more!) of
> physical memory. Which would cause it to thrash the page file.

> More RAM is the best suggestion I could make, without those two
> extremely critical bits of information.

Good questions.

I have a half-gig of RAM. The total swap file space available (as opposed to
being in use) is 1.5 gigs.

The confusing issue is that performance has been gradually deteriorating,
despite the fact that the configuration hasn't changed for years.

I've never seen a clear explanation of how one selects an optimum swap-file
size. I might very well remove the F: swap file, restart the machine, and
see what happens.

Thanks.

== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Sun, Sep 25 2011 11:01 am
From: "William Sommerwerck"

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net>
wrote in message news:zJ-dnVHiUZra9-LTnZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d@earthlink.com...

> How much RAM do you have? The computer needs a swap file when it
> runs out of physical memory. Go to www.belarc.com/free_download.html
> and download Belarc Advisor. It will tell you how much and what type of
> RAM you have. The updates you've installed over the years, plus all the
> other programs that load at startup use a lot of RAM. That slows down a
> computer.

Half a gig. I'm reluctant to add RAM, as I will be getting a new computer (I
hope) sometime in January.

To clarify a point... The swap file is often used /before/ the computer runs
out of RAM. Contrary to the claims being made for "recent" Windows editions,
this has been true at least since W2K and possibly earlier. Basically,
programs load DLLs and other extensions into the swap file when the program
initially runs.

> I use Spybot S&D and AdAware to look for spyware. Spybot is from
> Safer Networking and Adaware is from Lavasoft.

I have both, and agree with your recommendation. Haven't run them in a
while. Perhaps it's time.

== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Sun, Sep 25 2011 11:04 am
From: Jeff Layman

On 25/09/2011 14:28, William Sommerwerck wrote:
> I'm looking for a likely solution from someone who's seen the same problem
> and fixed it -- not theoretical speculations.
>
> I expect to buy a new computer early next year, (presumably) eliminating the
> problem. The obvious fix -- putting in a new drive and reinstalling
> everything -- would easily take a week, time I don't have for an obsolescent
> OS and hardware. (The thought of having to download and install 100+ OS
> updates from the Microsoft site pretty much puts the kibosh on the whole
> idea.)
>
> Over the past few years (not weeks or months -- years), my W2K-based PC has
> been running slower and slower. It started when the OS began appropriating
> additional swap-file space, something that rarely, if ever, happened during
> the first few years. Oddly, the more space it took, the slower it became.
>
> This slowness manifested itself as "grinding to a near halt" when switching
> among applications. Once the switch occurred, the computer appeared to run
> normally.
>
> In recent months, the slowdown has become what I can only call appalling.
> When I move to another application -- particularly when moving among FireFox
> tabs -- the drive light will come on and stay on for several /minutes/.
> Again, once the move has occurred, the machine generally runs at a
> reasonable speed -- for a while.
>
> It sometimes slows noticeably when loading -- or even displaying -- e-mail.
> It just took nearly a minute to download a 2K message -- but is now running
> normally.
>
> The problem doesn't appear to be caused by malware. Though that possibility
> can't be ruled out, neither the Task Manager nor Process Explorer (which I
> highly recommend) reveal anything "nasty".
>
> The Performance and Processes displays don't show anything odd. CPU usage is
> "normal", even when the drive light is on continuously.
>
> The paging (swap) files are set to 128MB to 768MB on the boot drive (C:),
> and to 768MB to 1280MB on drive F:, a partition that uses the drive space
> left after C:, D:,and E: were partitioned to give the minimum cluster size.
>
> In case you're wondering... I periodically empty out the trash bin, and run
> C[rap]Cleaner (another highly recommended free product). Otherwise, the boot
> drive would be quickly overrun.
>
> Thoughts, anyone?
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
>

Defragment the disk.
Many free defraggers for W2K here:
http://lists.thedatalist.com/pages/Defragging_Tools.htm

--

Jeff

== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Sun, Sep 25 2011 12:08 pm
From: Phil Hobbs

On 09/25/2011 01:54 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "Phil Hobbs"<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net>
> wrote in message news:4E7F69A2.10608@electrooptical.net...
>
>> Run defrag lately? Old PCs tend to get low on free space, which causes
>> fragmentation pretty rapidly.
>
> Last time was about three months back. About 10% of the boot drive is free.
>
>

That's very likely the problem. Going below about 20% free invites
problems. The defrag program won't even run if the free space is below
about 15%.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
845-480-2058

hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net

== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Sun, Sep 25 2011 12:08 pm
From: Phil Hobbs

On 09/25/2011 01:54 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "Phil Hobbs"<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net>
> wrote in message news:4E7F69A2.10608@electrooptical.net...
>
>> Run defrag lately? Old PCs tend to get low on free space, which causes
>> fragmentation pretty rapidly.
>
> Last time was about three months back. About 10% of the boot drive is free.
>
>

That's very likely the problem. Going below about 20% free invites
problems. The defrag program won't even run if the free space is below
about 15%.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
845-480-2058

hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net

== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Sun, Sep 25 2011 3:46 pm
From: "Michael A. Terrell"

William Sommerwerck wrote:
>
> "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net>
> wrote in message news:zJ-dnVHiUZra9-LTnZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d@earthlink.com...
>
> > How much RAM do you have? The computer needs a swap file when it
> > runs out of physical memory. Go to www.belarc.com/free_download.html
> > and download Belarc Advisor. It will tell you how much and what type of
> > RAM you have. The updates you've installed over the years, plus all the
> > other programs that load at startup use a lot of RAM. That slows down a
> > computer.
>
> Half a gig. I'm reluctant to add RAM, as I will be getting a new computer (I
> hope) sometime in January.

Someone might have some used RAM that will help. Likely DDR or
older. There isn't much call for older RAM so a lot gets thrown into
the recycle bucket.

> To clarify a point... The swap file is often used /before/ the computer runs
> out of RAM. Contrary to the claims being made for "recent" Windows editions,
> this has been true at least since W2K and possibly earlier. Basically,
> programs load DLLs and other extensions into the swap file when the program
> initially runs.

If the file it needs won't fit in avalible RAM it defaults to the
swap file. A half gig isn't much when you consider that some of your
RAM is used by your video card, if you don't have a high end card with
it's own RAM.

> > I use Spybot S&D and AdAware to look for spyware. Spybot is from
> > Safer Networking and Adaware is from Lavasoft.
>
> I have both, and agree with your recommendation. Haven't run them in a
> while. Perhaps it's time.

I run them every week. I defrag about every other week.

--
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 1 ==
Date: Sun, Sep 25 2011 11:17 am
From: Wilfred Xavier Pickles

On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 12:57:08 +1000, "Phil Allison" <phil_a@tpg.com.au> wrote:

>DX2400 is a code that gives the battery type and size.
>
>Seems they are really Sanyo Eneloop AAA cells in a new skin.
>
>So they are 800 mAH.

And if I'd like to be -certain- of the mAH rating, maybe I
should just buy the Sanyo Eneloop for not-much-more money?

Thanks,
Will

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

== 1 of 16 ==
Date: Sun, Sep 25 2011 1:54 pm
From: Rich Webb

On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 10:20:24 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:

>On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 17:54:07 +0100, "Arfa Daily"
><arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>>Anyway, enough time spent on this now. Been enjoyable.
>>Arfa
>
>Humor me for a moment. Take a digital camera photo of your favorite
>CFL lamp. Turn off all the other sources of light. What color do you
>get? Here's mine:
><http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/FEIT-23w.jpg>
>See a problem perhaps?
>
>Extra credit. Find various sheets of blank paper with an assortment
>of brightness from about 85 to 105. Photograph those using either a
>CFL lamp and an incandescent lamp source. What colors do you get?
>(Note that the 105 brightness contains phosphors resulting in the
>reflected light actually being brighter than the incident light).
>
>You might want to buy a cheap LED UV flashlight and a diffraction
>grating, for more fun with lighting.
><http://www.scientificsonline.com/holographic-diffraction-grating-film-10036.html>

Or, from the same source (as well as Amazon, etc.) this thing
<http://www.scientificsonline.com/precision-economy-spectrometer.html>
which includes a nm scale. Some examples of what it shows at
<http://home.comcast.net/~mcculloch-brown/astro/spectrostar.html>

--
Rich Webb Norfolk, VA

== 2 of 16 ==
Date: Sun, Sep 25 2011 3:10 pm
From: "Phil Allison"

"Jeff Liebermann = Nut case "

>
> Humor me for a moment.

** Be better to put idiots like you in straight jackets.

> Take a digital camera photo of your favorite
> CFL lamp. Turn off all the other sources of light. What color do you
> get?

** Irrelevant, totally.

Here's mine:
> <http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/FEIT-23w.jpg>
> See a problem perhaps?

** Nope.

.... Phil

== 3 of 16 ==
Date: Sun, Sep 25 2011 3:28 pm
From: "Trevor Wilson"

Arfa Daily wrote:
> Well, I guess we're never going to agree on any aspect of this. You
> seem predisposed to take the wrong way, a number of points that I
> have repeatedly made, but ho-hum, it's been an interesting line of
> chat, and at least it hasn't descended into a screaming match as is
> so often the case in these discussions :-)

**Provided there is some respect on both sides and an attempt to undestand
the other POV, I see no reason why a screaming match is necessary. I no
longer waste my time with those who choose to insult, rather than present a
cogent argument. It's better for my health.

Your comments about prices of CFLs have me intrigued. I did some more
research. Here are some prices in the US:

http://www.homedepot.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Navigation?storeId=10051&N=542102+90401&langId=-1&catalogId=10053&cm_sp=Electrical-_-LightBulbs-_-CatHighlight-_-CFLs

Prices appear to be somewhat lower than Australia and dramatically lower
than in the UK. I suggest that you should be complaining about CFL prices in
the UK. Clearly, something is seriously awry.

I accept personal preferences for ICs are valid. I accept that personal
preferences against CFLs are also valid. I also accept the testing done by
Choice and others, that prove the efficiency aspects of CFLs are
significantly in advance of ICs. I accept, in the abscence of evidence to
the contrary, that CFLs have a manufacturing energy cost that is
approximately 6 times that of ICs.

Having said all that, there is one aspect of our discussion that I find
deeply troubling. You're a smart guy. Yet you appear to be willing to reject
the overwhelming bulk of good, solid science that has shown that rising CO2
levels are causing the present warming we find ourselves experiencing. You
appear to be rejecting the science, in preference for the hysterical ravings
of those who have clear links to the fossil fuel industry. OTH, the
scientists who study and report on global warming, for the most part, do not
have links to the alternative energy business. They do what a good scientist
should do - report the science without regard to political or business bias.
Consider the NASA and EPA scientists who were issuing very clear warnings to
President Bush. Bush was a rabid global warming denier. We had the same
thing here in Australia. During the Howard government years, Australia's
premier scientific body (the CSIRO) was issuing clear reports to the
government that anthropogenic global warming was going to cause serious
problems for Australia and the rest of the planet. Yet the Howard government
was aligned with the Bush government, in that denial of the science was the
order of the day. In fact, the leftover ministers of the Howard government
are still denying the science, even today. Most are religious loonies, so no
one takes much ntice anymore.

Please do some reading on the topic. Unlike the present discussion on CFLs
(which is really a bit of a distraction), it is a very important issue.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

== 4 of 16 ==
Date: Sun, Sep 25 2011 3:40 pm
From: "Michael A. Terrell"

Phil Allison screeched:
>
> ** Be better to put idiots like you in straight jackets.

Who the hell let you out of yours?

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

== 5 of 16 ==
Date: Sun, Sep 25 2011 4:13 pm
From: "William Sommerwerck"

>> Humor me for a moment.

> ** Be better to put idiots like you in straight jackets.

Strait-jacket, Phil, not straight.

== 6 of 16 ==
Date: Sun, Sep 25 2011 4:24 pm
From: "Phil Allison"

"William Sommerwanker the Fuckwit PEDANT "

** Be better to put idiots like you in straightjackets.

Correct spelling.

== 7 of 16 ==
Date: Sun, Sep 25 2011 4:34 pm
From: "William Sommerwerck"

"Phil Allison" <phil_a@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:9e9rgoFe7sU1@mid.individual.net...

> "William Sommerwanker the Fuckwit PEDANT "

> ** Be better to put idiots like you in straightjackets.

> Correct spelling.

I did correct the spelling. You didn't have to ask again.

"Strait" means "narrow" -- the jacket greatly restricts its wearer's
movements. It does not hold the wearer "straight" -- quite the opposite.

== 8 of 16 ==
Date: Sun, Sep 25 2011 4:36 pm
From: "Phil Allison"

"William Sommerwanker the Fuckwit PEDANT "

>> ** Be better to put idiots like you in straightjackets.
>
>> Correct spelling.
>
> I did correct the spelling.

** No, you fucking FUCKWIT.

The spelling IS correct !!!!!!

Pedantry is a mental illness.

== 9 of 16 ==
Date: Sun, Sep 25 2011 5:03 pm
From: kreed

On Sep 26, 8:28 am, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
> Arfa Daily wrote:
> > Well, I guess we're never going to agree on any aspect of this. You
> > seem predisposed to take the wrong way, a number of points that I
> > have repeatedly made, but ho-hum, it's been an interesting line of
> > chat, and at least it hasn't descended into a screaming match as is
> > so often the case in these discussions  :-)
>
> **Provided there is some respect on both sides and an attempt to undestand
> the other POV, I see no reason why a screaming match is necessary. I no
> longer waste my time with those who choose to insult, rather than present a
> cogent argument. It's better for my health.
>
> Your comments about prices of CFLs have me intrigued. I did some more
> research. Here are some prices in the US:
>
> http://www.homedepot.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Navigation?storeId...
>
> Prices appear to be somewhat lower than Australia and dramatically lower
> than in the UK. I suggest that you should be complaining about CFL prices in
> the UK. Clearly, something is seriously awry.
>
> I accept personal preferences for ICs are valid. I accept that personal
> preferences against CFLs are also valid. I also accept the testing done by
> Choice and others, that prove the efficiency aspects of CFLs are
> significantly in advance of ICs. I accept, in the abscence of evidence to
> the contrary, that CFLs have a manufacturing energy cost that is
> approximately 6 times that of ICs.
>
> Having said all that, there is one aspect of our discussion that I find
> deeply troubling. You're a smart guy. Yet you appear to be willing to reject
> the overwhelming bulk of good, solid science that has shown that rising CO2
> levels are causing the present warming we find ourselves experiencing. You
> appear to be rejecting the science, in preference for the hysterical ravings
> of those who have clear links to the fossil fuel industry. OTH, the
> scientists who study and report on global warming, for the most part, do not
> have links to the alternative energy business. They do what a good scientist
> should do - report the science without regard to political or business bias.
> Consider the NASA and EPA scientists who were issuing very clear warnings to
> President Bush. Bush was a rabid global warming denier. We had the same
> thing here in Australia. During the Howard government years, Australia's
> premier scientific body (the CSIRO) was issuing clear reports to the
> government that anthropogenic global warming was going to cause serious
> problems for Australia and the rest of the planet. Yet the Howard government
> was aligned with the Bush government, in that denial of the science was the
> order of the day. In fact, the leftover ministers of the Howard government
> are still denying the science, even today. Most are religious loonies, so no
> one takes much ntice anymore.
>

On the contrary - few believe in it anymore at least in Australia.
This fraud has been thoroughly exposed for what it is and it is great
to see. Did you know that the head of the CSIRO is a former bankster,
from the same company that wants to be australia's carbon banker and
there is another sitting on the board there? The banksters cooked up
this scam and funded and promoted it behind the scenes over many years
as the next big cash cow for themselves, and to set up more control
over the people. In other words you and your business pays the tax,
and the big connected bastards get exemptions and you are driven under
and they end up with a monopoly and can charge what they want. This is
how the world works.

Scientists - like most other people in this world get jobs, pay and
research funding based on following the corporate line, and/or party
line, at least to the general public. Thats just how real life works
in this thoroughly corrupted world.

> Please do some reading on the topic. Unlike the present discussion on CFLs
> (which is really a bit of a distraction), it is a very important issue.
>
> --
> Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au

== 10 of 16 ==
Date: Sun, Sep 25 2011 5:19 pm
From: "William Sommerwerck"

"Phil Allison" <phil_a@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:9e9s8pFj59U1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "William Sommerwanker the Fuckwit PEDANT "

> >> ** Be better to put idiots like you in straightjackets.
> >
> >> Correct spelling.
> >
> > I did correct the spelling.
>
>
> ** No, you fucking FUCKWIT.
>
> The spelling IS correct !!!!!!
>
> Pedantry is a mental illness.

Phil...YOU are a mental illness.

== 11 of 16 ==
Date: Sun, Sep 25 2011 5:24 pm
From: "Phil Allison"

"William Sommerwanker the Fuckwit PEDANT "

>> ** Be better to put idiots like you in straightjackets.
>
>> Correct spelling.
>
> I did correct the spelling.

** No, you fucking FUCKWIT.

The spelling IS correct !!!!!!

Pedantry is a mental illness.

== 12 of 16 ==
Date: Sun, Sep 25 2011 5:34 pm
From: "Trevor Wilson"

kreed wrote:
> On Sep 26, 8:28 am, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>> Arfa Daily wrote:
>>> Well, I guess we're never going to agree on any aspect of this. You
>>> seem predisposed to take the wrong way, a number of points that I
>>> have repeatedly made, but ho-hum, it's been an interesting line of
>>> chat, and at least it hasn't descended into a screaming match as is
>>> so often the case in these discussions :-)
>>
>> **Provided there is some respect on both sides and an attempt to
>> undestand the other POV, I see no reason why a screaming match is
>> necessary. I no longer waste my time with those who choose to
>> insult, rather than present a cogent argument. It's better for my
>> health.
>>
>> Your comments about prices of CFLs have me intrigued. I did some more
>> research. Here are some prices in the US:
>>
>> http://www.homedepot.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Navigation?storeId...
>>
>> Prices appear to be somewhat lower than Australia and dramatically
>> lower than in the UK. I suggest that you should be complaining about
>> CFL prices in the UK. Clearly, something is seriously awry.
>>
>> I accept personal preferences for ICs are valid. I accept that
>> personal preferences against CFLs are also valid. I also accept the
>> testing done by Choice and others, that prove the efficiency aspects
>> of CFLs are significantly in advance of ICs. I accept, in the
>> abscence of evidence to the contrary, that CFLs have a manufacturing
>> energy cost that is approximately 6 times that of ICs.
>>
>> Having said all that, there is one aspect of our discussion that I
>> find deeply troubling. You're a smart guy. Yet you appear to be
>> willing to reject the overwhelming bulk of good, solid science that
>> has shown that rising CO2 levels are causing the present warming we
>> find ourselves experiencing. You appear to be rejecting the science,
>> in preference for the hysterical ravings of those who have clear
>> links to the fossil fuel industry. OTH, the scientists who study and
>> report on global warming, for the most part, do not have links to
>> the alternative energy business. They do what a good scientist
>> should do - report the science without regard to political or
>> business bias. Consider the NASA and EPA scientists who were issuing
>> very clear warnings to President Bush. Bush was a rabid global
>> warming denier. We had the same thing here in Australia. During the
>> Howard government years, Australia's premier scientific body (the
>> CSIRO) was issuing clear reports to the government that
>> anthropogenic global warming was going to cause serious problems for
>> Australia and the rest of the planet. Yet the Howard government was
>> aligned with the Bush government, in that denial of the science was
>> the order of the day. In fact, the leftover ministers of the Howard
>> government are still denying the science, even today. Most are
>> religious loonies, so no one takes much ntice anymore.
>>
>
> On the contrary - few believe in it anymore at least in Australia.

**The dribblers don't count. People who lack a decent education are not
representative of thinking adults. Nor are religious loonies like Alan
Jones, Christopher Monckton and George Pell.

> This fraud has been thoroughly exposed for what it is and it is great
> to see.

**Fraud? Do tell. Please provide your peer-reviewed science that proves that
the CSIRO, the IPCC, NASA, the US EPA, the British Academy of Science, the
US National Academy of Sciences, The German Academy of Science, The
Australian Bureu of Meteorology, The UK MET, The Royal Swedish Academy of
Sciences, The Netherlands Academey of Sciences and a host of other
organisations.

So, over to you: Supply your peer-reviewed science which proves that all
these guys (and many, many other respected scientific organisations) have it
so terribly wrong.

Did you know that the head of the CSIRO is a former bankster,
> from the same company that wants to be australia's carbon banker and
> there is another sitting on the board there?

**So? CSIRO has been successful at commercialising many of it's developments
over the years. It makes perfect sense to have people with commercial skills
on the board. The scientists report the science. The board does not.

The banksters cooked up
> this scam and funded and promoted it behind the scenes over many years
> as the next big cash cow for themselves, and to set up more control
> over the people.

**Did they? Prove it.

In other words you and your business pays the tax,
> and the big connected bastards get exemptions and you are driven under
> and they end up with a monopoly and can charge what they want. This is
> how the world works.

**Sure. It's how it has always worked. Nothing to do with global warming
though. Excessive CO2 emissions are driving the temperature of this planet
faster than at any time in the last 600,000 years. Nothing to do with
taxation, politics or the opinions of religious nutters.

>
> Scientists - like most other people in this world get jobs, pay and
> research funding based on following the corporate line, and/or party
> line, at least to the general public.

**Is that so? Care to explain why the scientists at the CSIRO reported to
the Howard (AGW denying) government that AGW was a real problem? Care to
explain why the scientists at NASA and the US EPA were reporting to the Bush
(AGW denying) government that AGW was a real problem? According to your
twisted logic, the scientists at all three organisations should have
reported what their political masters wanted. To their credit, the
scientists did what all reputable scientists do - they reported the facts.

Thats just how real life works
> in this thoroughly corrupted world.

**OK. Prove it.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

== 13 of 16 ==
Date: Sun, Sep 25 2011 6:50 pm
From: Jeff Liebermann

On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 08:10:12 +1000, "Phil Allison" <phil_a@tpg.com.au>
wrote:

>"Jeff Liebermann = Nut case "

>> Humor me for a moment.
>
>** Be better to put idiots like you in straight jackets.

Hmmm... I was looking for a suitable costume for Halloween. That's
an American tradition, where we dress up in scary costumes and
terrorize people like you.

Incidentally, I really enjoy being accused of marginal sanity. It
demonstrates that you're paying attention.

>> Take a digital camera photo of your favorite
>> CFL lamp. Turn off all the other sources of light. What color do you
>> get?
>
>** Irrelevant, totally.

Your brain self correct for color variations. Take a photo under
fluorescent tube lamps and you'll get a greenish tint (unless you have
a camera that automagically does color corrections). Your eyes can be
fooled. Your camera cannot, as it shows the true color.

> Here's mine:
>> <http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/FEIT-23w.jpg>
>> See a problem perhaps?
>
>** Nope.

Hint: It's yellow. It should be white or at least more like white
than a mix of red and green. I suspect that might be what is giving
Arfa problems. Photographing various CFL lamps, and selecting one
that is closest to white might be a fix.

I just found the package. It's a FEIT BPCE13T cheapo bulb. About
$1US as subsidized by PG&E (the local power utility).
<http://energy-star-lighting.findthebest.com/detail/573/Conserv-Energy>
2700K which makes it a "warm white".

>.... Phil

--
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

== 14 of 16 ==
Date: Sun, Sep 25 2011 6:59 pm
From: "Trevor Wilson"

Trevor Wilson wrote:
> **Fraud? Do tell. Please provide your peer-reviewed science that
> proves that the CSIRO, the IPCC, NASA, the US EPA, the British
> Academy of Science, the US National Academy of Sciences, The German
> Academy of Science, The Australian Bureu of Meteorology, The UK MET,
> The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, The Netherlands Academey of
> Sciences and a host of other organisations.

**Should read:

"....Sciences and a host of other organisations are wrong."

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

== 15 of 16 ==
Date: Sun, Sep 25 2011 7:09 pm
From: Je�us

On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 09:36:51 +1000, "Phil Allison" <phil_a@tpg.com.au>
wrote:

>
> "William Sommerwanker the Fuckwit PEDANT "
>
>
>>> ** Be better to put idiots like you in straightjackets.
>>
>>> Correct spelling.
>>
>> I did correct the spelling.
>
>
>** No, you fucking FUCKWIT.
>
> The spelling IS correct !!!!!!
>
> Pedantry is a mental illness.

You're doing exactly the same thing.

== 16 of 16 ==
Date: Sun, Sep 25 2011 7:10 pm
From: "Phil Allison"

"Jeßus = TROLL "

> You're doing exactly the same thing.

** Nonsense.

Piss off - you fucking retard.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Dark strip on LCD...
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/131fd0ca19572f97?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Sep 25 2011 2:21 pm
From: "Deke"

"Deke" <notgonnahappen@today.com> wrote in message
news:rKydnW7i4OVQoO3TnZ2dnUVZ_uednZ2d@giganews.com...
> "Deke" <notgonnahappen@today.com> wrote in message
> news:DKudnXrJK4zXSPrTnZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>> TV is a Polaroid 42" 1080p LCD, model TLX-04244B.
>> It was purchased on 11/28/08, at Wal-Mart, with an extended warranty.
>> It has developed a horizontal dark strip, about 3 inches wide, about 1/4
>> of the way down on the screen, running from one side of the screen to the
>> other. A technician from the insurance company is coming to check it out
>> on the 13th of this month.
>> I think one of the backlights has failed. Is it repairable?
>>
>> TIA!
>>
>>
>>
>> Picture of the Day http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/
>>
>
> Insurance tech came today, and as I suspected, it has a back light that
> has failed.
> Now its a waiting game to see what they will do.
> Thanks to all who replied.

And a call from the insurance agency came Friday, they are replacing the TV
with a newer model Vizio, remanufactured, with better specs. They are also
paying for UPS to deliver it to my house. I'm happy.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Electromagnetic spectrum – illusion and absurdity
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/d90219824a5fe1f4?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Sep 25 2011 3:32 pm
From: PlainBill@yawhoo.com

On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 16:19:16 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:

>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.
>
Every fool with an idiotic idea claims the person with the new idea is
not recognized in their lifetime. Your childish attempt to deflect
the objections by using 'prophets and scholars' to the contrary, you
only have to attend a few history classes to realize the falsehood of
your assertion. Off the top of my head, a few examples of scientists
and inventors who were widely appreciated in their lifetime include
the afore mentioned Eratosthenes, Archemedies, Da Vinci, Michelangelo,
Faraday, Franklin, Curie, Jenner, Lister, Einstein, Bell, Marconi,
Westinghouse, Steinmetz, Edison, von Braun, Cray, Fermi, etc.

At the same time, Velikovsky, Erich-von-Daniken, Fleischmann, Pons,
have dropped into the obscurity they deserved.

>>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.

Again, the typical excuses of the incompetent and deluded. If you
associate with fools and charlatans you may be judged by the company
you keep. If you endorse their ideas, you will deservedly be judged
by them.

PlainBill

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Sep 25 2011 6:25 pm
From: Jeff Liebermann

On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 15:32:18 -0700, PlainBill@yawhoo.com wrote:

>On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 16:19:16 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
>wrote:
>
>>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.

>Every fool with an idiotic idea claims the person with the new idea is
>not recognized in their lifetime.

Perhaps if they repeat it often enough, you might actually believe it?

>Your childish attempt to deflect
>the objections by using 'prophets and scholars' to the contrary, you
>only have to attend a few history classes to realize the falsehood of
>your assertion.

I wrote and meant "prophets and scholars", not "scientists and
engineers". Prophets and scholars have difficulties in proving the
value of their assertions. Proving the assertions of scientists are
difficult, but if one follows the experimental method, it eventually
becomes a pass/fail proposition. Proving the works of engineers are
the easiest. If it gets built, and it works, then it's good. If it
fails in some manner, it's not so good.

The same cannot be said for "prophets and scholars". Prophets are in
effect attempting to predict the future. Global environmental
climatology would be a science where it may take more than a lifetime
to validate various prophetic predictions. Scholars are experts in
their fields, who often build on their reputation to make scholarly
proclamations in areas outside of their areas of expertise. Both
prophets and scholars have problems proving anything, usually until
after they're dead, when the validity of their claims tend to be
advertised and built upon by subsequent prophets and scholars.

>Off the top of my head, a few examples of scientists
>and inventors who were widely appreciated in their lifetime include
>the afore mentioned Eratosthenes, Archemedies, Da Vinci, Michelangelo,
>Faraday, Franklin, Curie, Jenner, Lister, Einstein, Bell, Marconi,
>Westinghouse, Steinmetz, Edison, von Braun, Cray, Fermi, etc.

Most of those are scientists and engineers. They all had something
substantial to deflect critics and to prove their value. Had they
been "prophets or scholars", their might have been less appreciated.

>At the same time, Velikovsky, Erich-von-Daniken, Fleischmann, Pons,
>have dropped into the obscurity they deserved.

Velikovsky is a problem because he was about half right. His revised
middle east chronology was overly revisionist and generally wrong.
Yet, his criticism of the errors in the then standard chronology
opened the door to other scholars offering more realistic revised
chronologies. The few that I've read, all tend to start out with
comments and observations borrowed from Velikovsky. "Worlds in
Collision" was much the same. His observations were about half right
but his physics stunk. When Carl Sagen took it upon himself to openly
criticize his physics, Sagen almost completely neglected mentioning
anything about his observations and predictions, about half of which
were verified by subsequent space probes. To Sagen's credit, he was
also a staunch critic of those that attempted to suppress Velikovsky
simply because they disagreed with his analysis and predictions. This
is largely my point. Don't discredit someone's theory, philosophy,
prophecy, or logic, simply because you found a few mistakes. There
may be something of value in what's left.

Erich von Daniken has the same problem as Velikovsky. He tended to be
half right. He unearthed paradox's and inconsistencies in
conventional history and archeology that should make one at least
suspect that something was wrong. However, like Velikovsky, he didn't
know when to stop. Whenever something unexplainable was found, he
attributed it to aliens, rather than work on a more plausible
explanation, in violation of Occam's Razor.

I know little about Fleischmann and Pons as I haven't bothered to
study cold fusion or care much about it. As soon as it was found to
be difficult to reproduce the original experiments, I discarded the
whole thing as a bad mistake. However, I sympathize with them. Their
mistake was to self-publish and bypass the entire peer review
mechanism. We have a good example of that happening right now as a
CERN scientist now claims that he's measured neutrinos moving at
faster than the speed-o-light. Like cold fusion, we only have to wait
for experimental corroboration. It's acceptable to make a mistake. It
is not acceptable to publish and then be proven wrong.

<http://www.jir.com>
I've been reading the journal since about 1980.

>>Bottom line:
>>Criticize the merits of the argument, not the person advocating it.
>
>Again, the typical excuses of the incompetent and deluded.

You would do well as a member of the Inquisition, where the sole
criteria for survival is adherence to dogma and doctrine. Those that
refuse to conform are immediately deemed incompetent and under the
influence of the devil. Again, I suggest you pass judgment on
someone's ideas, not on the person.

>If you
>associate with fools and charlatans you may be judged by the company
>you keep. If you endorse their ideas, you will deservedly be judged
>by them.

That's a risk I'll willingly take. I prefer the company of fools and
charlatans to the company of those that confuse validation with
consensus.

>PlainBill

Incidentally, have you ever hear of Joseph Davidovits? His theory of
how the pyramids were built with re-agglomerated limestone has been
largely ignored by mainstream archeology:
<http://www.alibris.com/booksearch?author=joseph+davidovits>
<http://www.davidovits.info/217/book-why-the-pharaohs-built-the-pyramids-with-fake-stones>
<http://www.davidovits.info/94/book-they-built-the-pyramids>
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQoarWbd9KY>
(Ignore the added crap about Mars). My guess is he'll be dead before
his theories are proven and accepted. I find his theories compelling
and believe them generally correct. Since that opposes conventional
archaeology, does that also make me a fool (or charlatan for
promulgating them)?

--
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

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

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