sci.electronics.repair@googlegroups.com

Google Groups

Chris Jones <lugnut808@spam.yahoo.com>: Aug 21 12:01AM +1000 On 19/08/2015 22:06, Reinhard Zwirner wrote:   > <sob>, <weep>, <cry> ...   > Very disappointed   > Reinhard   Have you contacted https://www.littlediode.com/ directly, and asked why they are no longer on ebay? Probably won't help, but can't hurt to try.   Chris

Reinhard Zwirner <reinhard.zwirner@t-online.de>: Aug 20 06:39PM +0200 Reinhard Zwirner schrieb: > c4urs11 schrieb:   [...] >> http://produto.mercadolivre.com.br/MLB-670065303-ci-fej271b-dip-16-pinos-_JM   > They seem to ship only to locations in the vendor's country: "Envios > para todo o país".   Trying not to miss any opportunity I've registered at mercado livre and asked the vendor if they ship to Germany. The answer: No, only to locations in Brasil.   Sighing   Reinhard

N_Cook <diverse@tcp.co.uk>: Aug 20 09:33AM +0100 One fan fails to start. Presumably 12V but only 3.8 to 4V over both fans at start up. Recognised problem /solution.? Assuming its like the 2500 (sm out there) then 39R/3W dropper, is 27R/2W in here. I can see it being replaced with <>10R + PTC thermistor of <>15R hot . It would seem that , when operating at power, a TO220 transistor bypasses that resistor, proportionally.

N_Cook <diverse@tcp.co.uk>: Aug 20 12:23PM +0100 12V .37A fans. Same circuit structure as the J2500. Could not find a suitable PTC. May as well use the TIP41 and put an R and C between 12V and its base for switch-on full-on confirmation and 47R over the existing 27R 2W, to raise the "cold" fan voltage a bit, 4V I consider too low, 1/2 normal rating is waht I'd expect for slow running, plus initial kicker voltage. Fans are fine, the front one clogged with dust and hair.

N_Cook <diverse@tcp.co.uk>: Aug 20 02:50PM +0100 The 4V over the fans was due to the dropper going high to 38R, 27R 5W vitreous went in there instead. 2200uF/25V and 1K between base and 12V now gives the more reliable fans full-on at switch-on then drops down over about 5 seconds to low noise 6V drive, waiting for high power , on demand.

Ashton Crusher <demi@moore.net>: Aug 19 07:03PM -0700 On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 08:18:45 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid> wrote:   >>>frightening experience.   >>No doubt it is when you are new to the job.   >Middle-aged cop... definitely not new on the job.   So he never really learned to handle it as second nature?   One thought that occurs to me in this discussion is that many people simply refuse to believe a person can manage to use a phone and still safely drive. Yet pilots do essentially that all the time. I used to fly small planes and entering the pattern, flying it, and landing a small plane at a big airport, esp with crosswinds, can be a bit of a challenge to make sure you don't screw up something. The part that comes into this discussion is that during that process you have to ready the whole time to respond to air traffic control, both to understand and follow their instructions and to talk to them on the radio, you can't just ignore them cuz "I'm busy with the flaps". They need to know you heard them so then can then talk to the guy following you. Pilots do this all the time because they LEARN to do it. There is no reason to treat drivers like children as if they can't be taught to use cell phones safety but instead you have to ban their use.

Ashton Crusher <demi@moore.net>: Aug 19 07:14PM -0700 On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 13:56:56 +0000 (UTC), ceg >list itself, filled with scare-tactic titles, means you >are one puppy I never want to see on a jury or designing >anything that affects people's lives.   I went thru this a few years ago with the Daytime Driving Light fanatics. I collected all the research reports (where I was working at the time had a research section that could get them all for me) and went thru them all. What I found was that what you might think from both the title and the Summaries was almost never what the data showed. And the bottom line was that most of the studies were so poorly done as to be worthless. They were clearly commissioned merely to "prove" the desired political end. There were a few good ones that had actually established CONTROLS so they could properly compare before and after accidents. And the result was that 80% of those studies concluded that the data did not rise to the level of statistically sound usefulness to conclude anything. The remaining studies showed some types of accidents increased and some types of accidents decreased and that the net result of DRLs was at best a wash. They were neither useful nor harmful based on accident rates although they were clearly, based on complaints, highly irritating to a great many drivers since they shined the cars high beams into oncoming traffic in the daytime. They also increased the incidence of motorcycles being hit by cars as I recall. I thin the number of pedestrians hit went down.   In any case, what you say it true, you can't tell anything by the titles and in my experience you can't tell anything by the research either about 80% of the time. It would not surprise me if less then fifty people in the world actually read the entirety of many of these studies although millions may read some liberal arts major's newspaper story based on them having read the (misleading) summary of the report.

The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com>: Aug 19 08:07PM -0700 On 08/19/2015 07:03 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote: > you. Pilots do this all the time because they LEARN to do it. There > is no reason to treat drivers like children as if they can't be taught > to use cell phones safety but instead you have to ban their use.   I would guess that pilots have to be of above average intelligence in order to get a pilot's license. It seems obvious by inspection that half the drivers are subnormal and those are the ones who can't deal with driving and phoning simultaneously.   It wasn't a pilot who ran the red light BEHIND me as I was LEGALLY crossing in a crosswalk on the green light. If I'd been two seconds slower I would have been roadkill. I couldn't actually see that the driver was a woman babbling on her phone, but I'd be willing to be money on it -- she clearly couldn't see that everybody else was stopped either.   My daughter can handle it and does all the time because she's a tour director and is on the phone constantly solving problems; I rarely use the phone and recognize that I'm unable to safely talk and drive at the same time.   -- Cheers, Bev --------------------------------------------------- Don't you just KNOW that there is more than one Sierra Club member who is absolutely sure that the dinosaurs died out because of something humans did?

"Robert Green" <robert_green1963@yah00.com>: Aug 20 08:55AM -0400 "ceg" <curt.guldenschuh@gmail.com> wrote in message news:mr2881   <stuff snipped>   > of the myriad tear jerker articles that sway dumbshits who have absolutely > no science background (and therefore no basis in pure logic) like > trader4 (who either is uneducated or just plain of low intelligence).   Those are two traits I would NOT ascribe to Trader4. Impatient with people he disagrees with, yes. (-:   Here I think he's right, though, because it seems you're assuming some direct correlation of every new cellphone going into the hands of a driver that's never had one before. That's a pretty fatal logic flaw because it's an assumption easily disproved by researching who owns cell phones, how many, how old the users are, whether this is a first cellphone ever or a replacement, etc.   I see enough pre-teens with cellphones to know yours is a faulty main premise. I know enough people with multiple cell phones to dispute the notion that there's anything remotely like a one-to-one correspondence of each new cellphone going straight into the hands of a driver who's never had one before.   It's easily demonstrated with vectors, alas Usenet's still in the ASCII graphics world. You have a number of factors working to bring down the accident rate. Graduated licensing for young adults, key-interlocks for drunk drivers, better driver's ed, cars with accident avoidance technology, pressure from the authorities and even peer pressure. Every time I pass by a texting driver I honk the horn and wag my finger at them. One day I will probably scare one into a ditch because they always look at me with the "where am I?" look of total distraction. I often tell people I drive with to put the cellphone away when they are tempted to make a call that doesn't qualify as urgent. Do I get yack-back from them? Sure.   So there are any number of pressures working to cancel out the expected rise in the accident rate from increased cellphone usage. All most be considered when trying to determine what's happening.   Then there are some great PSA's on TV showing texting teens getting atomized by tractor-trailers or sailing off overpasses that *might* be having some effect.   But anything near a one-to-one correlation of cellphone owners and drivers can't possibly be true or supported by any statistics I've reviewed.   http://www.pewinternet.org/data-trend/mobile/cell-phone-and-smartphone-ownership-demographics/   Tells us the market's saturated with 90% of American adults people reporting ownership of a cellphone. So all these new phone are not getting into the hands of *new* drivers.   http://kff.org/disparities-policy/press-release/daily-media-use-among-children-and- teens-up-dramatically-from-five-years-ago/   <<Over the past five years, there has been a huge increase in ownership among 8- to 18-year-olds: from 39% to 66% for cell phones,>>   That suggests that a lot of the new phones *aren't* going to anyone driving a car. At least not yet.   -- Bobby G.

"Robert Green" <robert_green1963@yah00.com>: Aug 20 09:11AM -0400 "Jeff Liebermann" <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote in message   <stuff snipped>   > CATV means CAble TV.   It started out being Community Antenna (or Access) TV . . .   <<The abbreviation CATV is often used for cable television. It originally stood for Community Access Television or Community Antenna Television, from cable television's origins in 1948: in areas where over-the-air reception was limited by distance from transmitters or mountainous terrain, large "community antennas" were constructed, and cable was run from them to individual homes. The origins of cable broadcasting are even older as radio programming was distributed by cable in some European cities as far back as 1924.>>   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cable_television   -- Bobby G.

dplatt@coop.radagast.org (Dave Platt): Aug 19 11:50AM -0700 In article <4pn7tadlnqfpausst843g6um6sicg70kim@4ax.com>, >>thin films under electrical stress. US Patent #4696832 has more info.   >Never heard of that stuff, but if it's as you describe, it should be >quite useful. How conductive, I don't know.   This material is better known as "Stabilant 22" (often used as "Stabilant 22A", diluted in alcohol). Years ago, Stabilant 22A was remarketed to the audiophile community (in small syringes, probably with a huge mark-up) under the name "Tweek".   I've used it for quite a few years. It definitely seems to help maintain electrical connections between contacts. Quite useful for (e.g.) finger contacts on PCI cards... it has restored reliable operation for cards which were intermittent, when a simple "unplug, clean, and re-plug" cycling didn't help.

gregz <zekor@comcast.net>: Aug 20 06:37AM > haven't had time to read through the patents yet but I'll get to it > this weekend.   > [1] increased pressure => thin film => increased conductivity   I still have cramolin copper grease. I never used it on anything. Seems like it had little conductivity with test leads.   Greg

video guy <f6ceedb9c75b52f7fcc0a55cf0cfbf5d_@example.com>: Aug 20 02:37AM I am trying to keep an ampex 1200 from dragging, anyone know how to take apart, clean and lubricate?   --

stratus46@yahoo.com: Aug 19 10:07PM -0700 On Wednesday, August 19, 2015 at 7:37:04 PM UTC-7, video guy wrote: > I am trying to keep an ampex 1200 from dragging, anyone know how to take > apart, clean and lubricate?   > --   Are you talking an audio deck or a VR-1200 quadruplex VTR?

"mikespo@live.com" <mikespo@live.com>: Aug 19 09:05PM -0700 Radio Shack still exists, despite having closed many stores. Their website lists the 277-1008 for $14.99,with several stores in the northern NJ area stocking it. Hope this helps.

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.