sci.electronics.repair@googlegroups.com

Google Groups

Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>: Aug 18 03:57PM -0700 On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 19:30:42 +0000 (UTC), ceg   >I know there are different impedances for coax cable, but I didn't know >what letting to look for on the Goodwill coax cables.   You want something in 75 ohms, not 50 ohms. That means one of the many mutations of RG-6/u.   >So, the one I bought said "CATV" but I don't know if that's the right >cable.   CATV means CAble TV. That term hasn't been used in many years, so it's probably old cable with potentially ancient connectors. It may also be RG-59/u, which you should not be using (because most of it is garbage).   Incidentally, a quick test of the connector is to just pull on the connector. If it seperates from the coax cable, it's a lousy crimp, bad connector, or both. If you want to make your own cables, buy compression connectors and the right tools. <http://www.ebay.com/itm/171227302904> <http://www.ebay.com/itm/191352097155> <http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=coax+cable+stripper>   -- 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

Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>: Aug 18 04:21PM -0700 On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 19:38:23 +0000 (UTC), ceg   >I wonder if Jeff knows whether it's best to use the speed test supplied >by the ISP, since that's most likely to follow the same pipes?   That used to be the case, when the number of hops and total latency limited the maximum speed that it would test. However, with jumbo packets and large windows, that's no longer the case. The speed test program will usually select the closest or fastest test server anyway. I'm on Comcast Biz class service. I sometimes run Comcast speed test from California to Washington DC. The latency figures are high (88 msec instead of the usual 13 msec) but the speed figures are roughly the same as local. I do tend to favor using the ISP's test server, but that's from habit, not necessity. <http://speedtest.comcast.net> <http://www.speedtest.net> <http://speedof.me> <http://testmy.net> <http://www.att.com/speedtest/> <http://www.speakeasy.net/speedtest/> <http://myspeed.visualware.com> and bunch of private iperf, iperf3, Jperf test servers.   >That is, if I'm using AT&T, wouldn't the most accurate speed test be >one that AT&T supplies, which uses AT&T pipes?   Accurate usually means highest speed indication and minimum congestion effects. At slow connection speeds, almost any test server will work. When you get up to 100 Mbit/sec speeds as Comcast is doing, you'll need to check a few test sites. Things get messy if your route is through a router that blocks, throttles, or delays speed tests. Probably the highest number is the least congestied, and therefore the most accurate. Those that limit the number of simultaneous or consecutive tests are probably the best. Comcast does that as when they boosted the local speeds, it sometimes took me 10 mins to start a tests because everyone in the area was running speed tests.   >Likewise, for comcast?   Generally true, but not always. Peering between ISP nodes is commonly shared. Run a traceroute to a test server and see what's on the route.       -- 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

dold@93.usenet.us.com: Aug 19 03:09AM > I certainly suggested buying the SB6141 at Costco, but I don't believe   I bought an SB6121, a month or two before it would have made sense to by a 6141, but in any event, the Motorola/Arris anything is better than the Arris/Arris that Comcast provides.   > as a self install. They then purchased an SB6141 at Costco and > activated it. Once working, they returned the unopened gateway device > for credit.   I knew I hadn't paid an install fee, and forgot how that happened. I took the "$8/month" modem/router, because once upon a time, I had so much trouble with cable that they replaced the modem several times before they replaced the drop, and I didn't want to have that argument with customer owned equipment. But, after a month or two of horrible WiFi, I went with the 6121 and an Asus router.   > Impressive. Much depends on who you get on the phone. I've heard of > hour long ordeals and have experienced 20 minute activation acrimony.   Mine took a couple of minutes on the phone.   In a reply to another post, speedtest.comcast.net shows IPv4 and IPv6 numbers, speedtest.net only shows IPv4.   -- Clarence A Dold - Santa Rosa, CA, USA GPS: 38.47,-122.65

ceg <curt.guldenschuh@gmail.com>: Aug 19 03:48AM On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 16:21:52 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote:   > The speed test > program will usually select the closest or fastest test server anyway.   This is good to know as I knew you'd have experience with the answer.   > <http://www.att.com/speedtest/> > <http://www.speakeasy.net/speedtest/> > <http://myspeed.visualware.com>   These are great test URLs to have handy, and I put them in my database. Others will find them useful also. Thanks.   > When you get up to 100 Mbit/sec speeds as Comcast is doing, you'll > need to check a few test sites.   I find, strangely enough, that if I run two or three sequential tests, that the second and/or third test are far faster than the first. I dunno why, but, it's almost as if the first test "cleans the pipes" or something obscure like that.   > Probably the highest number is the least congestied, and therefore the > most accurate.   This makes sense, although I had never thought about that before. So, basically, run a few tests, and the highest result is the best.

"(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid>: Aug 18 08:42PM -0400 Per Don Y: >community (we have large annual events). I've tried riding a bike *once* >in the 20 years, here and decided it was a foolish exercise. Too many >crazy drivers!   I ride a *lot* - but would never, ever recommend it to anybody else.   The core of my being able to feel reasonably not-in-danger is avoiding proximity with motor vehicles. But that leads one into behavior that is largely illegal, probably does not scale, and depends on an continuous series of decisions.   >[Unfortunately, dark colors are bad for things like mosquitos; they >are *drawn* to darker colors]   Yes but that may be the lesser of two evils: <https://picasaweb.google.com/108149798664924808733/Humor#6009321546127227042> -- Pete Cresswell

Ashton Crusher <demi@moore.net>: Aug 18 07:32PM -0700 On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 21:35:49 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:   > "Our results suggested that recent and rapid increases in > texting volumes have resulted in thousands of additional > road fatalities yearly in the United States."   I agree with pretty much all you wrote just before this. We simply don't have the data to sort out the truth. And as a result we have the paradox. It seems to me too things are true but this is just my opinion... 1) Cell phone use can be distracting and distractions can cause accidents. 2) The hysteria of cell phone use is unwarranted. Whatever level of distraction and accidents result is very little different, in the totality of actual distractions for all causes, then things were before cell phones. So more or less, for every cell phone caused accident there is on less CD changing caused accident. I'm sure it's not really a 1:1 ratio but it's close enough that the hysteria is unwarranted.   Beyond that though I think there is a real difference between "using a cell phone" as in placing or receiving a call and talking AND texting. Texting simply takes too much mental processing for too long a time to be safe. And I think some studies point to that difference. I used to inspect roads and trying to write down on paper, which was similar to texting, the info I was gathering as I drove down the road was just way too distracting to be safe. But dictating it into a small micro-recorder worked just fine and I could keep my eyes on the road and immediately react if anything popped up. I'd play it back at the office and make the notes.

Ashton Crusher <demi@moore.net>: Aug 18 07:33PM -0700 On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 03:27:14 +0000 (UTC), ceg   >1. Police are required to report them when they are involved, >2. Insurance companies probably report them when a claim is made, >3. Drivers are required to report them in most states, etc.     The other issue is that for every alleged accident caused by someone "using a cell phone" there may have been 20 million similar "hazardous events that could have caused an accident" where the driver was using a cell phone and DIDN'T have an accident.

Ashton Crusher <demi@moore.net>: Aug 18 07:36PM -0700 On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 09:33:14 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid> wrote:     >I have heard a local cop remark that he found driving a police cruiser >with all it's radios and other distractions to be something of a >frightening experience.   No doubt it is when you are new to the job. Then you learn how to do it safely, or at least as safe as it can be done. I posted at length about this somewhere in this thread.

Ashton Crusher <demi@moore.net>: Aug 18 07:38PM -0700 On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 18:43:52 +0000 (UTC), ceg   >I think, while that is possible, it's highly unlikely; but, that is yet >another possible answer to the enigma that the cellphone-caused accident >rate doesn't seem to exist - all the while we *think* that it should.     Drunk driving did not go down at a rate of 50% per year at the same time that Cell phone use was going up for 50% a year.

Ashton Crusher <demi@moore.net>: Aug 18 07:43PM -0700 >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.   The problem I see is that the conclusion is absurd. The CLAIM that the accidents were caused by the cell phones is mostly likely just happenstance. A cell phone was in use THEREFORE the cell phone MUST have caused the accident. Well, the brakes were in use too, should we say the brakes caused the accident? Ditto for the headlights for nighttime accidents. You know every cop is itching to check the box or write the comment that "cell phone contributed" because cell phones are today's demon. It's like how when someone has a single car accident and they can't come up with a reason they check the box for "speed related" because... Hey, he must have been going to fast! He had an accident!!.

Ashton Crusher <demi@moore.net>: Aug 18 07:44PM -0700 >messages. The council estimated in a report this spring that a quarter >of all crashes involve cellphone use. Besides fatal crashes, that >includes injury-only and property damage-only crashes.     The safety nazis have NEVER seen a year when MORE "safety" wasn't needed for one reason or another.

The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com>: Aug 18 08:32PM -0700 On 08/18/2015 12:07 PM, ceg wrote: > kind of odd).   > Anyway, I am shocked that you use the phone so little, as I use it > basically 100% of the time when I'm in my car.   What would I use it for? I rately want to talk to people on the phone, I'd much rather send email -- which I do from my computer because typing on a real keyboard is just SOOOO much easier than bumbling along on the phone's 'keyboard'. There's a cd player in the car, on which I listen to the radio or audiobooks on trips of half an hour or more -- I've been working on a Tom Clancy for a couple of years now; you don't have to remember the plot, you can just pick it up whenever it's handy :-) It's easier to use the Garmin GPS, especially since reading small print is a real bitch and I mostly know where I want to go anyway.   So what DO you use yours for? Do you have that many people you want to talk to? Scary...       -- Cheers, Bev ================================================== Segal's Law: A man with one watch knows the time. A man with two is never sure.

Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>: Aug 18 04:35PM -0700 On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 12:01:51 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:   ><http://store.caig.com/s.nl/sc.2/category.185/.f> >I've used this grease on rotating connections, at 40A it's just like >a solid wire connection.   Looks like aluminum dust, copper dust, graphite, and/or quartz(???). No clue if it's graphite spheres or flakes. Ignoring quartz, the others are not particularly great conductors because of the lack of sufficient contact area between particles. It's much like the conductive PCB paint used to "print" conductive traces. Even using silver, it's not very conductive. Graphite flakes are tolerable because the flakes overlap, but still produces high resistance connections.   One your rotating joint connection, did you use brushes or a commutator to make the connection? If so, the path of least resistance is through these connections, not through the grease. Grease will certainly help, but it works by burying any small arcing under a layer of grease, which blocks oxygen to the arc, and therefore reduces pitting and burning.   -- 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

whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>: Aug 18 04:58PM -0700 On Tuesday, August 18, 2015 at 4:35:13 PM UTC-7, Jeff Liebermann wrote: > >I've used this grease on rotating connections, at 40A it's just like > >a solid wire connection.   > Looks like aluminum dust, copper dust, graphite, and/or quartz(???).   Can't be, it's transparent. It's based on a semiconductive component, which is nonlinear: insulating in bulk, but breaks down (in conductivity, not chemical nature) in thin films under electrical stress. US Patent #4696832 has more info.   > One your rotating joint connection, did you use brushes or a > commutator to make the connection? If so, the path of least > resistance is through these connections, not through the grease.   It was bronze rubbing on a steel element; the grease keeps the steel from oxidizing while increasing the effective contact area.

Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>: Aug 18 07:02PM -0700 On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 16:58:50 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:     >Can't be, it's transparent. It's based on a semiconductive component, which is nonlinear: >insulating in bulk, but breaks down (in conductivity, not chemical nature) in >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. The patent isn't very helpful: <http://www.google.com/patents/US4696832> "The contact stabilization material comprises at least one block polymer or co-polymer of polyoxypropylene together with polyoxyethylene." It then points to a French patent: <http://www.google.com/patents/EP0144399A1?cl=en> which has a better explanation. I'll RTFM over the weeken.   I got the Caig L260 and M260 info you linked came from: <http://store.caig.com/s.nl/sc.18/category.1049/.f> (Sorry I forgot to include the link. Kinda crazy today). Notice the mention of metallic filler. Is Caig L260 and M260 the right grease or should I be looking for something else?     -- 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

"Edmund J. Burke" <nocookies@parkway.net>: Aug 14 06:30AM -0700 "MNMikeW" wrote in message news:mqiruo$n6d$1@news.mixmin.net...   What, chemically, is that whiteish crumbly powder on bad batteries?   We all have seen it, and most of the time you can just brush it off, but I have it on a device deep inside that I can't get a brush on without breaking stuff.   I'd like to use a solvent (I already tried water but I want to do a better job) that dissolves the stuff so knowing the chemistry might help.   Do you have any idea what the chemical composition of that stuff is?     I believe it is faerie cum.

Wes <wes@g.mail>: Aug 14 01:31AM -0700 On 08/13/2015 09:35 PM, MNMikeW wrote:   > That article was nice, but I'm always suspicious when someone suggests > idiotic things such as "pure water" (goes with "kosher salt" in my book, > or with "organic eggs", etc.).   Yah, organic eggs, ROFLMAO!   Chickens fed GMO food (marinated in glyphosate) and tons of antibiotics are much better for your gut microbiome and autoimmune system. You'll be fine, just take your pharmaceuticals.

Thane <m741@ix.netcom.com>: Aug 14 09:02AM -0500 On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 04:31:50 +0000, MNMikeW wrote:   > mixture of ammonium chloride and manganese dioxide in the comments.   > It seems that lemon juice or vinnegar (ie weak acids) are the way to > clean it up chemically, based on that article.   I've used a Qtip dipped in tap water to remove the most of these deposits. Vinegar should be used cautiously as acids may attack the metals used in the battery contacts in the device you're trying to clean up.   Thane

"Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam>: Aug 14 10:13AM -0400 | That article was nice, but I'm always suspicious when someone suggests | idiotic things such as "pure water" (goes with "kosher salt" in my book, | or with "organic eggs", etc.).   That's quite a lot to lump into one category. Are you sure your salt doesn't have "yellow prussiate of soda"? (cyanide salt) Do you really think it makes no difference what livestock eat? Where would you draw that line? If you don't care about such things then what is food?   There's a difference between being a ninny and being attentive. But I would agree about "pure water". That sounds like the menu item made from "Baby Yukon Gold tubers, fresh dairy milk, genuine Himalayan ghee and a trace of finest Italian parsley" -- mashed potatoes. :)

Steven Bornfeld <dentaltwinmung@earthlink.net>: Aug 14 02:32PM John Robertson wrote:   > You want to let it soak in for a while, and using a wooden skewer or > similar to dislodge any caked material is good...   Would urine work?

"Arfa Daily" <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com>: Aug 19 01:47AM +0100 "Phil Allison" <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote in message news:ab1f9489-bc90-4c6c-9493-1db7413ad2c1@googlegroups.com...   > Have you not seen the QSC's USA models or the MX700 ?   > ... Phil   Yes, and embarrassingly, I was even working on one last week ... :-\ Funny how just a different name on the front blinkers you to the obvious. I was even discussing that odd output topology with a colleague.   Back to the problem in hand. I only had a few minutes to look further today.   In answer to your questions, yes, there was a dummy load on the end that has a built in power meter. Yes, there are two main boards, each of which has a power amp and power supply, and one of which also has the driver / clip sense circuitry for both channels. Initially today, it was giving its problem. Couple or three volts RMS going in, transformer balanced into the channel 2 XLR input. As soon as the front panel level control is advanced just a gnat's cock, on comes the clip light, very solid. The amp still has output, but it's pretty strangled, as you would expect if the clip limiter is genuinely coming in. When looking at the output of the opamp on pin 7, when it's wrong, it's massive, and asymmetric, so I guess that's the reason for the clip circuit to come in and the light to come on. It's as though the opamp has suddenly attained 10 times its normal gain. I thought at one point that maybe the level control was going intermittently open at its groundy end, but when it's working, with that level of input signal, you can wind the level pot full up, and not make it clip. It's as though a feedback resistor is going open intermittently. Trouble is, all of the resistors around the opamp are those tiny tiny sm devices that are so small you can barely see them.   Actually, a thought now occurs to me. I wonder if the level control is actually nothing of the (conventional) sort, but rather a variable feedback resistor for the opamp, as they sometimes are in some amps. If that went open, it might allow the opamp to go to full open loop gain. I don't remember the level control being shown on the section of schematic that you linked for me. I'll maybe have a look tomorrow if I get time, but today, a shitload of work has poured in the door, including four Technics SL1210s that are needed by the weekend, an Evans tape echo, two Voxs and a Marshall ...   As I finished checking around the opamp today, it came back right, and wouldn't go bad again, with the control as smooth as you like from zero to flat out, so at that point, it got flung off the bench again to make room for something else.   Oh yes, and the ribbon. There is one of about ten or twelve ways that links the two boards, and I have had problems in the past I seem to remember, but in this case, it seems quite solid, as do all the other connectors. In fact I haven't found a way to provoke the problem into either coming or going. It just does it, as and when it feels like it.   Thanks for your input. Any and all suggestions and insights are welcome with problems like this   Arfa

c4urs11 <c4urs11@domain.hidden>: Aug 18 10:28PM On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 22:05:16 +0200, Reinhard Zwirner wrote:   > or two pieces? Many thanks in advance for your help.   > Best regards   > Reinhard   Could this be what you are looking for? http://www.ebay.com/itm/FEJ271B-SemiConductor-/400742554651   Cheers!

Reinhard Zwirner <reinhard.zwirner@t-online.de>: Aug 19 02:15AM +0200 c4urs11 schrieb:   [...] > Could this be what you are looking for? > http://www.ebay.com/itm/FEJ271B-SemiConductor-/400742554651   Yippieh! Again: Thank you very much! YMMD!   On the other hand I don't understand that my eBay search wasn't successful <sigh>.   Best regards   Reinhard

c4urs11 <c4urs11@domain.hidden>: Aug 18 10:10PM On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 22:11:30 +0200, Reinhard Zwirner wrote:   > manual/schematic? Many TIA!   > Best regards   > Reinhard   There is a nice scanned manual here (over 27MB filesize): <http://www.doctsf.com/documents/afficher_document.php?num_doc=39500&num_fic=1>   The referring page is: http://www.doctsf.com/documents/feuilleter_document.php?num_doc=39500&ref=29741   The downloaded document is a PDF file, but named "PM 244 A" only, so it's best to rename it properly.   Cheers!

Reinhard Zwirner <reinhard.zwirner@t-online.de>: Aug 19 02:10AM +0200 c4urs11 schrieb:   [...] > There is a nice scanned manual here (over 27MB filesize): > <http://www.doctsf.com/documents/afficher_document.php?num_doc=39500&num_fic=1>   Great! Thank you very much!   Best regards   Reinhard

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.