sci.electronics.repair@googlegroups.com

Google Groups

gregz <zekor@comcast.net>: Aug 18 08:07AM > else will do for some obscure application that may well crop up as soon > as I no longer have it around. > So... get rid or hang on?   I know I have looked at more than two channels. I had one scope with a total of six channels. 2 plus 4 ch plugins. These were low bandwidth, so I think it was more like looking at data logging events,   Greg

avagadro7@gmail.com: Aug 17 03:59PM -0700 AE6KS back to Jiffy Lube !   or today: https://www.google.com/search?q=non+corrosiding+silicone+grease&biw=1103&bih=620&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAmoVChMIjbapgZuxxwIViRk-Ch29zAcT#tbm=isch&q=crc+electronics+cleaner   versatile.

avagadro7@gmail.com: Aug 17 04:45PM -0700 > AE6KS back to Jiffy Lube !   > or today: https://www.google.com/search?q=non+corrosiding+silicone+grease&biw=1103&bih=620&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAmoVChMIjbapgZuxxwIViRk-Ch29zAcT#tbm=isch&q=crc+electronics+cleaner   > versatile.   Wal sells bags o brushes for $5 in Arts n Crafts. I bought one today of various types needing actual paint the holes brushes and brushes for PCblaster.   here's a normal pack http://www.walmart.com/ip/Red-Sable-Artist-Brush-Set-12-Pkg/32761202   PCb's nozzle tube needs siliconing then work the nozzle cap left and right with thumb while holding brushing against nozzle.   Allied sells real mil spec cleaners if your Collins recently surfaced from storage in 1955.

gregz <zekor@comcast.net>: Aug 18 08:00AM > generally presumed to be the same as Cramolin. If this is correct, > then using DeoxIT to "clean" battery contacts just coats the contacts > with a layer of mineral oil.   I was thinking products like 409 were alkaline. Some of the more potent forms, castrol super clean, and greased lightning, etch glass.   From what I know, the current cramolin, still available, sold as contaclean, is a cleaner, and must be washed away after cleaning. The can I have got real sticky around nozzle, and the can seems to be eating itself. I think someone compared spectral components of deoxit vs cramolin, and were different. Wished I knew more without always comming up with my own findings on web search.   I usually just wipe clean with water, then lube with something like CRC 2-26.   Greg

gregz <zekor@comcast.net>: Aug 18 08:00AM >> that.   > I don't think I have ever heard of an "organic acid". > Any examples of mild organic acids you know of?   Oleic acid. Stuff found in olive oil. Oleic acid and naphtha, popular electronic cleaner. Yo can mix with alcohol. Deoxit is a formulation replacing cramolins formula.   Greg

Muggles <xyz@pdq.invalid>: Aug 17 08:03PM -0500 On 8/17/2015 7:05 PM, Don Y wrote: > your SECOND trip! As a result, I have a very conscious goal of > trying to do plumbing jobs in *two* trips -- not yet ambitious enough > to hope for *one*]   My current project is building some floating shelves in my bathroom using tension rods, and one store will have 2 parts of what I need, another store will have 3 parts. I threw up my hands and put everything back because I needed the essential tension poles in the right length before I could even start. The shelves I needed were out of stock, too.   Today, after searching the Home Depot website I finally found the tension rods AND the right wire shelves that I need. The hardware to put it together is at another store (Lowes). Home depot had a package of C clamps that were the right size and color, but the package also had a bunch of other screws and wall board anchors that I didn't need for a whopping $28. I'm not paying that for C clamps. I may run up to Ace Hardware and see if I can buy the clamps there. If not, I'll go back to Lowes and get the plastic C clamps they have which will work fine and they're like $7 for a bunch of them.   I've been back and forth to Lowes several times JUST looking, but that part has been fun working out what I need and then going on a scavenger hunt finding the parts.   -- Maggie

Muggles <xyz@pdq.invalid>: Aug 17 08:03PM -0500 On 8/17/2015 7:07 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote: >> even play a radio while they drive.   > The problem arises when people from the second category think they are > in the first.   yes!   -- Maggie

SeaNymph <SeaNymph@deepbluesea.com>: Aug 17 08:05PM -0500 On 8/17/2015 3:23 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:   > At least that's how I rationalize trips to the shopping mall: I want to > find the shoes, kill them, and bring them home. My SO wants to look > here, look there....   I dislike shopping generally, and look at almost all of it as a mission. Get it, get what I want and get out. I have better things to do. Of course, I dislike watching television as well, unless it's football <g>

SeaNymph <SeaNymph@deepbluesea.com>: Aug 17 08:06PM -0500 On 8/17/2015 3:35 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote: > of a ban just so I don't have to cope with people yakking on the phone > while they wander back-and-forth over the line and back up traffic by > cruising the hammer lane.   While I dislike driving around people talking on cell phones, I hate going hiking and have to listen to someone on the phone. Or you want a quick bite to eat, but the person in front of you can't put the damn phone down long enough to order.

ceg <curt.guldenschuh@gmail.com>: Aug 18 02:43AM On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 04:28:35 -0700, trader_4 wrote:   > There are plenty of > stories of accidents and fatalities where cell phone usage was > involved.   But, if they are actually happening in any meaningful way, then the accident rate would be going up.   That it's not, is the paradox.

ceg <curt.guldenschuh@gmail.com>: Aug 18 02:45AM On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 20:03:18 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:   > than 2009, a 14% increase. Could be the highest number of fatalities in > years. They said 55% were speed related, 25% cell phone related.   > One of you is using the wrong statistics. Me thinks you are FOS.   You're talking fatalities, which is even further removed from accidents than injuries.   Why do you persist in muddling what is so very simple.   You and I believe that cellphone use is distracting enough to cause accidents, yet, those accidents aren't happening.   What part of that is full of shit? (Do you have *better* accident statistics?)   If so, show them.

ceg <curt.guldenschuh@gmail.com>: Aug 18 02:50AM On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 04:07:36 -0700, trader_4 wrote:   > "Data are estimated. Year-to-year comparisons should be made with caution."   You fundamentally don't understand zeros.   It's like the old joke of aiming nuclear weapons.   If the number of accidents were truly going up, no amount of estimation errors would hide that fact.   It's clear, that the accident rate did not track the cellphone ownership rate, and that is a fact that no amount of apologies on your part can erase.   I think you're looking to prove your point that the astoundingly huge skyrocketing rate that must be expected by your assumptions is, somehow, magically, hidden inside of "estimation" errors.   You're grasping at straws.

ceg <curt.guldenschuh@gmail.com>: Aug 18 02:52AM On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 20:08:23 -0700, Ashton Crusher wrote:   > in your morning commute in 1985 you were endangered on your 20 mile > commute by 5 people with car phones, by 2010 you would be endangered > by 5000 people with them. The roads should be awash in blood.   That's the conundrum!

ceg <curt.guldenschuh@gmail.com>: Aug 18 02:54AM On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 04:35:41 -0700, trader_4 wrote:   > I understand the concept that CEG has not once stated the > word "rate". At least if he has, I haven't seen it.   Just to be clear, I've used the words "accident rate" many times, but, to be just as clear, I don't think it matters whether we use rate or number of accidents, because, as someone already said, if the accidents were really being caused by any appreciable percentage of cellphone owners, then the roads would be awash in blood.   That they're not, is the conundrum.

ceg <curt.guldenschuh@gmail.com>: Aug 18 02:57AM On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 04:35:41 -0700, trader_4 wrote:   > " Data are estimated. Year-to-year comparisons should be made with caution."   > Yet here he is, doing exactly that, making year to year comparisons > and refusing to even acknowledge this striking disclaimer.   You have a logic problem if you really believe that your entire premise is that the answer is hidden inside of "estimation error".   I thank you for looking for a solution out of the conundrum, but, you're not going to find it in accident rate estimation error.   You apparently have no concept of the powers of ten (hint: It's an extra zero or two or three on the numbers, which no estimation error in the world is going to hide).,   That your entire premise hinges on the estimation error being so large as to greatly sway the numbers means you're simply grasping at straws.   I too am looking for *where* the conundrum is solved, but, it's not going to be in the "estimation errors" of the US figures on year to year accident rates.

The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com>: Aug 17 08:01PM -0700 On 08/17/2015 02:21 PM, Don Y wrote: >>>> where the conclusion was that women are more able to multitask without >>>> skipping a beat and men were more single minded limiting their ability >>>> to multitask?   Nobody can multitask, it's just sequential flipping back and forth. Women may just need to do more flipping than guys do.   >>> here, look there....   > Or, worse yet, LOOK at all of them, then nonchalantly <flinch> and > leave, empty-handed -- yet not *distressed* by this fact!   When I needed shoes for my daughter's wedding I ended up trying up everything that might vaguely go with my dress in the quest for something that didn't hurt. I took the winners off as soon as I could sit down at the reception. Some men's tennies are OK, but they suck for formal wear.     > OTOH, get into an old-fashioned hardware store (i.e., *not* "Ace") and > I can spend hours looking at odd little things wondering what use I > could find for them! :>   Our only REAL hardware store closed several months ago. One of the things of which I'm most proud is that Mrs. Berg offered me a job there 45 years ago when I was buying a lot of weird stuff to build a tape recorder. Couldn't take it, but it made me really feel good. Still does.   > [Men also seem to have an unnatural fondness for flashlights! And, give > a man a garden hose and he won't set it down until the well runs dry! :> ]   Damn Harbor Freight stopped giving them out even if you didn't buy anything. Those are nifty little flashlights.   > socks, etc. Then, buying is just a check-off task (no "looking" or > "deciding" required). And, can even be delegated to others: "Pick up > three of these, for me -- at <store>".   Yard sales. People buy way too many clothes, so I might as well buy used t-shirts for a quarter and levi's for $2. This means that *I* buy way too many clothes.   > It also cuts down on that time in the morning when you have to "decide" > what to wear, "today".   T-shirt, shorts/pants. I'm good.     -- Cheers, Bev $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ "If you put the government in charge of the desert, there would be a sand shortage within ten years." -- M. Friedman (?)

ceg <curt.guldenschuh@gmail.com>: Aug 18 03:04AM On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 21:52:57 -0500, Dean Hoffman wrote:   > use while driving. All but one test subject failed their simulator test > either by crashing or getting lost. > Thirty people took the test. The show aired 9:30 CDT on August 16.   If this is true, then why aren't accident rates going up?

ceg <curt.guldenschuh@gmail.com>: Aug 18 03:06AM On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 10:36:27 -0400, micky wrote:   > Radio just said that traffic deaths were up 14% this year and injuries > 1/3   Let's stick with accidents, since injuries and deaths have a whole host of additional factors that actually have nothing to do with cellphone ownership (and some that do), but none of which are relevant to the original accident.   You're just clouding what is a simple issue that is a paradox.   Unless you're saying that cellphone use causes these fatalities and injuries WITHOUT causing an accident first?

ceg <curt.guldenschuh@gmail.com>: Aug 18 03:09AM On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 17:19:01 -0700, Ameri-Clean wrote:   > may be lower among texters. A meaningful statistic would show > the rate of accidents per 1,000 who text often or sometimes > vs. per 1,000 who never text.   You have supplied a possible fifth solution to the conundrum!   I have noted already that a car with a cellphone might actually be a *safer* car than one without, simply because of the lack of need for reading road signs in the rain, or for making u-turns in unfamiliar territory, or for avoiding traffic backups, etc.   Certainly a cellphone equipped car is much safer *after* the accident, because help can be on its way even before you step out of the vehicle.   So, maybe the conundrum is solved by the assumption that cellphones both cause and prevent accidents in *exactly equal numbers*.   That would be a fifth solution to the conundrum.

The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com>: Aug 17 08:19PM -0700 On 08/17/2015 08:04 PM, ceg wrote: >> subject failed their simulator test either by crashing or getting >> lost. Thirty people took the test. The show aired 9:30 CDT on >> August 16.   I saw it. I trust them. I think they take too much pride in their actual considerable skills and are having too much fun to fudge their projects.   > If this is true, then why aren't accident rates going up?   Perhaps the smarter non-users are getting better at avoiding the assholes on the phone -- a survival characteristic.   I've used my phone twice while driving. Both times I could actually FEEL my peripheral vision as well as my attention to driving shutting down. Both times my response was "I'm on my way, see you in a few minutes." I don't use my phone for anything but messages like that and really don't understand how people can be constantly chattering.   -- Cheers, Bev $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ "If you put the government in charge of the desert, there would be a sand shortage within ten years." -- M. Friedman (?)

micky <NONONOmisc07@bigfoot.com>: Aug 18 01:11AM -0400 In alt.home.repair, on Tue, 18 Aug 2015 03:06:00 +0000 (UTC), ceg   >> Radio just said that traffic deaths were up 14% this year and injuries >> 1/3   >Let's stick with accidents,   No let's not, since you don't have good data on accidents.   >since injuries and deaths have a whole >host of additional factors that actually have nothing to do with >cellphone ownership   No more so than accidents.   >(and some that do), but none of which are relevant >to the original accident.   Deaths may have factors like that but injuries don't. And your objection doesn't apply to deaths either, because the same people lying dead on the highway or dead at the hospital within a day or two, 99% of the time would still be alive were it not for the accident.   >You're just clouding what is a simple issue that is a paradox.   You're just clouding an issue to make it seem like there's a paradox.   >Unless you're saying that cellphone use causes these fatalities and >injuries WITHOUT causing an accident first?   Deaths and injuries are directly though not necessarilly linearly proportional to accidents.

John Robertson <spam@flippers.com>: Aug 17 10:16PM -0700 On 08/17/2015 3:39 PM, John-Del wrote:   > You conveniently left out some important facts.   > "US Vehicle Miles Driven Have Sunk To A New Post-Crisis Low"   > Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/vehicle-miles-driven-2013-2#ixzz3j78zIZGG   ...   > ... In my town (Wolcott, CT), a guy waiting in line at a traffic light on a motorcycle was stuffed into the car in front of him by a girl texting.. He lived three days. I've seen at least a half dozen near misses recently from people on cell phones.   One facet of driving that motorcycle safety courses try to teach is you NEVER relax your vigil of watching for rear enders until you have at least two cars stopped behind you, and I wait for at least three (clutch in, first gear, and looking for exits). You also never stop close enough to the car ahead that you can't swing out around them in an emergency.   I've been riding motorcycles for over 45 years now and the two accidents I was involved in (many years ago) I could easily have avoided if I had taken a safety course back then - I have since taken several such courses and am a much safer rider as a result. (I hope!)   John :-#(# -- (Please post followups or tech inquiries to the USENET newsgroup) John's Jukes Ltd. 2343 Main St., Vancouver, BC, Canada V5T 3C9 (604)872-5757 or Fax 872-2010 (Pinballs, Jukes, Video Games) www.flippers.com "Old pinballers never die, they just flip out."

Don Y <this@is.not.me.com>: Aug 18 12:51AM -0700 On 8/17/2015 8:01 PM, The Real Bev wrote: >>>>> to multitask?   > Nobody can multitask, it's just sequential flipping back and forth. Women may > just need to do more flipping than guys do.   In software engineering, multitasking is a commonly used mechanism for making more robust, reliable, maintainable, etc. programs. Do a bunch of little things AS IF that was *all* you had to do.   But, there is an implicit overhead in doing so -- because a computer can really only *do* one thing at a time. So, you have to "switch" between these different tasks. That means remembering EVERYTHING about what you *were* doing on the first task while you *recall* everything that you had previously *done* on the second task. The time/effort that it takes to do this is "overhead" (waste).   The same things apply to human brains. It takes effort to remember where you are in a given task in enough ACCURATE detail that you will be able to later return to that point -- while simultaneously recalling the details of the *other* task that you are now going to resume. All that effort "switching" is "waste".   And, opportunity to screw up!   > that might vaguely go with my dress in the quest for something that didn't > hurt. I took the winners off as soon as I could sit down at the reception. > Some men's tennies are OK, but they suck for formal wear.   I wasn't specifically commenting on shoes -- though understand your reference in light of the point at which I injected my comments.   Rather, women (sorry to generalize) tend to be content to look at lots of *anything* and then leave with *nothing*. AND, not be distressed over this fact! If I've made a trip out to buy/acquire something, I am upset if I don't come home *with* it! "Wasted trip".   Furthermore, men will tend to keep that on their ToDo list as an unfinished task. Women seem not to mind (arbitraily?) deciding that they don't *need* it, afterall! ("I'll make do with what I have...")   [If the man could have rationalized a way of "making do", he would have done so to get out of that *task*!]   [Of course, I am painting with a broad brush...]   > which I'm most proud is that Mrs. Berg offered me a job there 45 years ago when > I was buying a lot of weird stuff to build a tape recorder. Couldn't take it, > but it made me really feel good. Still does.   I haven't been in a "real" hardware store since I left New England.   >> a man a garden hose and he won't set it down until the well runs dry! :> ]   > Damn Harbor Freight stopped giving them out even if you didn't buy anything. > Those are nifty little flashlights.   It was silly of them to offer them as free WITHOUT purchase. OTOH, much of their stuff is of dubious quality. I was looking to buy a drywall lift and looked at their offering: would I want to be standing under a sheet of drywall supported by *this*??   <frown>     > Yard sales. People buy way too many clothes, so I might as well buy used > t-shirts for a quarter and levi's for $2. This means that *I* buy way too many > clothes.   The idea of "previously worn" clothing gives me the heebie-jeebies. Kind of like a *used* toothbrush... who cares how many times it's been WASHED!!! <frown>   >> It also cuts down on that time in the morning when you have to "decide" >> what to wear, "today".   > T-shirt, shorts/pants. I'm good.   Jeans (several identical pair) and black or white T-shirt (see post elsewhere re: how I invariably choose the wrong color to wear).   If it's a special occasion (party, funeral, etc.) I drag out black dress slacks and a black shirt (the "Johnny Cash" look).   Once in a blue moon I'll get "to the nines" in a three-piece suit. Usually, my friends find that disturbing...

Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com>: Aug 17 09:09PM -0700 Arfa Daily wrote: > detect circuit, but before going round in circles trying to see what's > happening and why, it would be handy to have a schematic to see how the clip > detect circuit is designed and what its inputs are.     ** The schem of the 2.3 should be very close:   http://www.mediafire.com/view/bmotmjwznd2/MAC_series_service_manual+8.jpg#   The Alto MAC amps have basically copied early QSC models like the USA850 and 900. Changes include use of a toroidal transformer, flat pack output transistors and SMD for all the small signal stuff.   The topology is very odd with output transistor collectors all tied to chassis ground while the DC rails swing with output signal. Speaker drive comes from the PSU centre points for each channel and the usual driver transistors have simply been eliminated. The short circuit protection scheme is weird too.   Advantages are a low parts count, cheap to make and will not pass DC current into a speaker under fault conditions.   The clip LED is driven by U2-B (half an NE5532 supplying drive to the output stage) via a diode bridge and also triggers the clipping limiter (U1A) via R26 to ground.     .... Phil

"Arfa Daily" <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com>: Aug 18 12:25AM +0100 Schematic, anyone ?   Cheers   Arfa

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.