sci.electronics.repair@googlegroups.com

Google Groups

Unsure why you received this message? You previously subscribed to digests from this group, but we haven't been sending them for a while. We fixed that, but if you don't want to get these messages, send an email to sci.electronics.repair+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

Morris <f6ceedb9c75b52f7fcc0a55cf0cfbf5d_996@example.com>: Oct 29 10:37PM I have a Black and Decker coffee maker model # CM1050B type 2. I need the value of the #1 resistor on the control board #HET-BST CM1050-P. Resistor is burned and cracked. It looks like a one watt ceramic resistor. Any help will be appreciated.   --

N_Cook <diverse@tcp.co.uk>: Oct 30 08:25AM On 29/10/2014 22:37, Morris wrote: > burned and cracked. It looks like a one watt ceramic resistor. Any help > will > be appreciated.   Carefully desolder the parts and measure the ohmage of the 2 parts, unlikely to be more than a factor of 2 ,up or down, of the original. Does that value make ballbark sense with the associated control device. Replace whatever control device that has also failed. Then a matter of treading carefully, powering up with a variac and monitoring what happens

amdx <nojunk@knology.net>: Oct 29 12:47PM -0500 On 10/27/2014 3:48 PM, whit3rd wrote:   > Alternately, one can attenuate (filter) either the interfering FM station or the (presumably > AM) difference-frequency station: this can be done with a lossy antenna+load > placed near your radio, so can apply without access to antenna terminals.   I recently had a station on 107.5 also have a signal at around 87.xx, don't know exactly I was using an analog radio. I almost called the station, but waited until the next day and the lower frequency signal was gone. I know it was just a single day event because I listen daily to a transmission at 87.5Mhz.   Mikek   --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com

amdx <nojunk@knology.net>: Oct 29 02:01PM -0500 On 10/29/2014 1:11 AM, micky wrote: > But the frequencies are different, and there's no Baltimore 88.5, so why > would 88.5's antennas have to avoid the populous part of Baltimore, or > any part?   I had a local situation at 94.5MHz interfering with 94.3MHz. The 94.3MHz station is an out of town station and signal strength is weaker. The interference was on all my radios. I called the Radio station engineer and he suggested the engineer from the out of town station probably put me up to making the call, this was not true. From the conversation, I think he had got a lot of calls about the interference, but he assured my the station was in compliance with FCC Reg's. It was Hip Hop vs O'Reilly back then. It went on that way for years until the station changed from Hip Hop to some other format, then the interference went away. Today I can't even find a semi local 94.3 MHz station.   Mikek       --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com

"William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgeezer@comcast.net>: Oct 29 12:28PM -0700 "Ian Jackson" wrote in message news:0iUda0GN0QUUFwOM@g3ohx.demon.co.uk...   > I'm pretty sure that the local oscillator nearly always runs 10.7MHz > HIGHER than the radio signal.   Precisely If it were lower, you'd greatly increase the possibility of images.

Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca>: Oct 29 04:01PM -0400 On Wed, 29 Oct 2014, William Sommerwerck wrote:   >> than the radio signal.   > Precisely If it were lower, you'd greatly increase the possibility of > images.   Isn't it more precisely, that by putting the LO higher, the image falls where fewer strong signals are?   You don't want images to be below the FM broadcast band, then you end up with TV stations 2 through 6. But above the FM broadcast band, you get a decent stretch of aero band, amateur radio, public service, weather. Channel 7 doesn't start until somewhere above all that.   Michael

Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.demon.co.uk>: Oct 29 07:55PM In message <m2rf4b$1av$1@dont-email.me>, William Sommerwerck <grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> writes >> I'm pretty sure that the local oscillator nearly always runs 10.7MHz >>HIGHER than the radio signal.   >Precisely If it were lower, you'd greatly increase the possibility of images.   Even with the local oscillator above the station frequency, if you're near an airport, you can get the air traffic control traffic (120MHz +/- quite a lot) breaking through - especially if the planes are passing more-or-less overhead. My kitchen radio gets hit when it's tuned to 97.3MHz, by out-bound flights which have just taken off from London Heathrow, on around 118.7MHz. But, of course, it all depends on the 'front end' selectivity of the radio. However, this doesn't explain the OP's problem - which indeed does sound as if it's simply that the same program being carried by more than one transmitter. -- Ian

"William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgeezer@comcast.net>: Oct 29 01:21PM -0700 "Michael Black" wrote in message news:alpine.LNX.2.02.1410291558180.4171@darkstar.example.org... On Wed, 29 Oct 2014, William Sommerwerck wrote:   >> images.   > Isn't it more precisely, that by putting the LO higher, the image falls > where fewer strong signals are?   That would depend on band allocations and transmitter power. I'm thinking of images from within the FM band.   Given that the FM band is 20MHz, and twice 10.7 MHz is greater than 20MHz, if the LO is above the incoming signal, images would come from stations above 107.9MHz (outside the band). If the LO were below the incoming signal, you could have in-band images starting at 98.9MHz.

Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.demon.co.uk>: Oct 29 08:43PM In message <m2ri8g$e6a$1@dont-email.me>, William Sommerwerck <grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> writes >20MHz, if the LO is above the incoming signal, images would come from >stations above 107.9MHz (outside the band). If the LO were below the >incoming signal, you could have in-band images starting at 98.9MHz.   No. Taking the upper band edge as 108, 108 - 2x10.7 = 86.6 (well below the lower band edge). This is within old US TV channel 6 - and as you tune lower, you will hit channel 5. -- Ian

Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com>: Oct 29 03:56PM -0700 Ian Jackson wrote:   > > 97.4+10.7 = 108.1 = higher f than any station.   > I'm pretty sure that the local oscillator nearly always runs 10.7MHz > HIGHER than the radio signal.   ** In the examples I have checked ( both tube and SS ), it was always 10.7MHz lower.   Makes the LO more stable is one reason.     .... Phil

Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com>: Oct 29 04:06PM -0700 William Sommerwerck wrote:     > the LO is above the incoming signal, images would come from stations above > 107.9MHz (outside the band). If the LO were below the incoming signal, you > could have in-band images starting at 98.9MHz.     ** Nonsense.   Long as a particular band has less width than double the IF frequency, no in-band images will occur.     .... Phil

Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.demon.co.uk>: Oct 29 11:22PM In message <bc626660-d1bb-45a0-88d8-ff0d9dadfea2@googlegroups.com>, Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> writes >> HIGHER than the radio signal.   > ** In the examples I have checked ( both tube and SS ), it was always >10.7MHz lower.   Then don't you get a lot of image trouble from the two TV channels below the FM band?   > Makes the LO more stable is one reason.   I would think the benefit would be pretty marginal.   While I'm sure there are exceptions, regardless of the frequency they're receiving, there are probably very few 'normal' radios or TV sets etc where the LO runs below the tuned frequency.   -- Ian

Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com>: Oct 29 04:41PM -0700 > >10.7MHz lower.   > Then don't you get a lot of image trouble from the two TV channels below > the FM band?     ** Who is this "you" - white man ?   The tube FM receiver was made in USA ( mono, 75uS de-emphasis) and used a 12AT7 local oscillator - barely able to run at 100MHz.           .... Phil

Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com>: Oct 29 05:16PM -0700 micky wrote:     > I lose track of which radios those are, so I'll start tuning at 88.1 and > tune up very gradually. After a period of silence, when I get above > 88.5 to what I'd estimate is 88.6 or .7 or .8 I get 88.1 again.     ** What make and model radio is doing this ??   Does it have a TDA7000 IC inside, by any chance ??   Those have an internal IF frequency of only 70KHz and image rejection is by purest magic.   FYI:   If this problem exists on only one radio, it must be the fault of that radio. FYI 2   Your post is 99% incomprehensible drivel.       ... Phil

micky <NONONOmisc07@bigfoot.com>: Oct 29 09:23PM -0400 On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 09:30:32 -0000, "Arfa Daily" >> says that it's 50,000 watts ERF (sp?) but 88.1 is only 15,500 watts. >> (also ERF? It didnt' say.)   >ERP - Effective Radiated Power ?   Oh, yeah. P... F... closely related (just add a curved line to the F.)   >The 'real' transmitter output multiplied >by the 'gain' of the transmitting antenna.   Thanks.

micky <NONONOmisc07@bigfoot.com>: Oct 29 10:09PM -0400 >Hip Hop vs O'Reilly back then. It went on that way for years until the >station changed from Hip Hop to some other format, then the interference >went away.   Not surprising. The Hip Hop people are a bunch of trouble-makers.   From the miscellaneous drawer, that same expensive KLM radio that gets 88.5 well all the way from DC got 88.1 well too, not surprising since it's a Baltmore station and that's where I am.   But about 6 months ago, there started to quite a bit of static (FM static? Maybe I should listen to it again. Anyhow, it was hard to listen to.) on the local station on the expensive radio. But all** the other much cheaper radios continue to get the local station just fine. So sometimes it pays to be cheap.   ** I keep buying radios from the 60's and 70's at hamfests, looking for one that will get 88.1, 88.5 and 101.1     > Today I can't even find a semi local 94.3 MHz station.   LOL

micky <NONONOmisc07@bigfoot.com>: Oct 29 10:23PM -0400 On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 22:09:28 -0400, micky <NONONOmisc07@bigfoot.com> wrote:     >** I keep buying radios from the 60's and 70's at hamfests, looking for >one that will get 88.1, 88.5 and 101.1     Not 101.1. 90.1, C-Span radio, which I guess I've lost interest in. It's boring as all get out during the committee hearings, and the 7AM program used to be great, but it's been discovered by the wackos. Weekends, especailly evenings and nights, can be great. BookTV very good. It or they had a long series about every president and another series about every first lady, and their playing of the LBJ tapes was enlightening (I'd wondered for decades if he really was pro-civil rights or if his votes as senator were the real LBJ. It was the first.)

josephkk <joseph_barrett@sbcglobal.net>: Oct 29 10:18PM -0700 On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 12:28:16 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"   >> I'm pretty sure that the local oscillator nearly always runs 10.7MHz >> HIGHER than the radio signal.   >Precisely If it were lower, you'd greatly increase the possibility of images.   Nonsense, it would just change their location. Right into the VHF low TV broadcast band (at least in the US).   ?-)

Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.demon.co.uk>: Oct 30 08:15AM In message <7ei35ads3e3n7bhuoqm1og396pe9pvslp4@4ax.com>, josephkk <joseph_barrett@sbcglobal.net> writes   >Nonsense, it would just change their location. Right into the VHF low TV >broadcast band (at least in the US).   >?-)   You don't change the mechanism for the interference, but because the two TV channel allocations are where they are, if either was used in your area you would certainly increase the possibility of interference from them. However, as I've said, I think it's unusual for the LO to be on the low side (probably for exactly this reason). -- Ian

junebug1701 <junebug1701@gmail.com>: Oct 30 12:30AM -0700 On Monday, October 27, 2014 1:07:24 PM UTC-5, David Farber wrote: > -- > David Farber > Los Osos, CA   It's probably a watchdog circuit. Used to indicate proper operation. If it stops blinking, it means the processor is locked up. Perfectly normal.

"malua mada!" <fritzo2ster@gmail.com>: Oct 29 11:45AM -0700 Looking at the animated sequence, the uphill end of the carrying wire is tied to a tree, not anchored in the ground otherwise? That tree is going to bend over.   Likewise, no matter how huge the downhill tree may be, watch the roots on the downhill side for signs of popping.   Good luck with the parade ground in the sky!

"Tom Miller" <tmiller11147@verizon.net>: Oct 29 03:56PM -0400 "Danny D." <dannydiamico@gmail.com> wrote in message news:m2n459$c0c$25@dont-email.me... > cable.   > The treehouse itself, when it's built, will be supported mostly by the > redwood trees.   Here are a few things that come to mind:   Has the owner checked with his insurance provider to see if he is protected from liability? Things like this are known as an attractive nuisance and everyone involved might be at risk should anyone get hurt.   Have you considered corrosion of the cable? Is it steel, galvanized, or stainless?   Do you have an inspection plan in effect to detect future failure conditions?   You might apply some paint to the cable clamps to serve as a witness mark to see if anything slips.   It is pretty neat and will have all the kids in the area interested.     Regards

josephkk <joseph_barrett@sbcglobal.net>: Oct 29 09:11PM -0700 On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 20:48:36 +0000 (UTC), "Danny D."   >Let them know that I appreciate their advice! >(Please invite them to lunch on Wednesdays in Redwood City if they're >local.)   It never was a question about the strength of the trees. It has always been about the cables and the load.   ?-)

"Danny D." <dannydiamico@gmail.com>: Oct 30 04:21AM josephkk wrote, on Wed, 29 Oct 2014 21:11:45 -0700:   > It never was a question about the strength of the trees. It has always > been about the cables and the load.   I would tend to agree, as the big redwood is massive (30 feet in circumference). https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5607/15498557171_df86936bcb_b.jpg   For scale, there's actually a person, wearing blue, in the cargo net right next to the tree, fixing the blocks for the cable that we later wrapped around that tree.   BTW, even the little redwoods are not all that little: https://c4.staticflickr.com/4/3910/15279581646_2753fa993e_c.jpg

"Danny D." <dannydiamico@gmail.com>: Oct 30 04:25AM Tom Miller wrote, on Wed, 29 Oct 2014 15:56:20 -0400:   > Things like this are known as an attractive nuisance and > everyone involved might be at risk should anyone get hurt.   The owner is an ex Google executive, so, he has the disposition to have lots (and lots) of "attractive nuisances" on his property! For example, you can travel in another part of his property, high up, from tree to tree to tree to tree (etc) by cargo net, for HUNDREDS of feet!   I always find a way to take my grandkids to his place for fun stuff. > Have you considered corrosion of the cable? > Is it steel, galvanized, or stainless?   Steel. When I asked, he said there's plenty of zinc fittings, so, he wasn't worried about rust.   > Do you have an inspection plan in effect to detect future failure > conditions?   Good question. I'll ask.   > You might apply some paint to the cable clamps to serve as a witness > mark to see if anything slips.   This is a GREAT idea! I will suggest that to the owner!   > It is pretty neat and will have all the kids in the area interested.   Kids love his place. I can't count the number of "attractive nuisances" he has on his rather large (scores of acres) property.

You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to sci.electronics.repair+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.