sci.electronics.repair@googlegroups.com

Google Groups

N_Cook <diverse@tcp.co.uk>: Nov 03 04:41PM Anyone ever seen this before? Basically clear mica but with black smokey looking intrusions, something geological in the way of tar/bitumen leeching into the cleaving planes?

Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com>: Nov 03 04:19PM I don't think any of us here would take some semi-ancient item of electronic equipment of unknown provenance and just plug it in the mains socket and switch on. We know from experience or elsewhere that is not an advisable thing to do. So we typically gently wind up the voltage via a variac over an extended period of time. But is that enough? I read somewhere one should also monitor the current drawn by the equipment as one does this. I admit I've never been quite that fussy, but would be interested in hearing what others think about this rather more cautious approach and if it actually achieves anything worthwhile.

"pfjw@aol.com" <pfjw@aol.com>: Nov 03 09:24AM -0700 Rant pending as I am traveling. But it is better to dump equipment in salt water than to apply power without a precise means of monitoring it. Dim bulb devices notwithstanding.     Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA

Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net>: Nov 03 12:28PM -0400 On 11/03/2016 12:19 PM, Cursitor Doom wrote: > one does this. I admit I've never been quite that fussy, but would be > interested in hearing what others think about this rather more cautious > approach and if it actually achieves anything worthwhile.   Well, maybe if it has an old school 50/60 Hz transformer, rectifier, cap power supply. I don't have a lot of those sorts of things.   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   hobbs at electrooptical dot net http://electrooptical.net

N_Cook <diverse@tcp.co.uk>: Nov 03 04:40PM On 03/11/2016 16:19, Cursitor Doom wrote: > one does this. I admit I've never been quite that fussy, but would be > interested in hearing what others think about this rather more cautious > approach and if it actually achieves anything worthwhile.   Variac yes, meter or lamp for current behaviour yes . One cheap-now extra, monitor with a small simple IR thermometer for any hot spots, not the large ones for car engines but key-fob size that you can really get inside kit with . Note, at the collector has to be metal, shrink some heatshrink over the outside of the collector cone to avoid any short circuits

"pfjw@aol.com" <pfjw@aol.com>: Nov 03 06:44AM -0700 Mpfffff. Either a 12-gauge for when the drone is moving at treetop level, or a brush gun (35 Remington or 45-70) for when it is hovering. Positive, and low-tech. However, this may be an uniquely American response. Brits, on the other hand do have their Purdys.   Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA

MJC <gravity@mjcoon.plus.com>: Nov 03 03:09PM In article <50b328b2-9449-464e-b3f3-f7dea3b14ef4@googlegroups.com>, pfjw@aol.com says...   > ... Brits, on the other hand do have their Purdys.   > Peter Wieck > Melrose Park, PA   As in "The Avengers"?   Mike.

"pfjw@aol.com" <pfjw@aol.com>: Nov 03 09:12AM -0700 As in the Avengers, certainly. Hand made shotguns in the 5 and 6 figure range.

krantrueblood@gmail.com: Nov 03 07:58AM -0700 On Tuesday, April 10, 2001 at 11:12:06 AM UTC-5, Samantha Lyles wrote: > this NG might help out with a few leads.   > Thanks,   > Sam   do you still have these ?

Bill Moinihan <moi@example.com>: Nov 03 02:27AM Ralph Mowery wrote:     > You will have to follow the wiring diagram that is on the ballast as it > will be different from the old one. The new ones are made to fit in the > same bracket/screw holes as one of the older ones.   Thanks for that suggestion!   How does this one look from Home Depot? http://www.homedepot.com/p/120-Volt-Electronic-Ballast-for-4-ft-4-Lamp-T8-Fixture-93885/205409893   One question is whether I need "instant start" or "programmed/rapid start": https://www.1000bulbs.com/category/4-lamp-t8-fluorescent-ballasts/   I think I need "rapid" start because that's what is there now, I think.   Since cost is a major issue for me (I have little money but want to get rid of the buzzing from the bad ballast and if I can get rid of fluorescent tubes and save money on electricity, that would be a plus), here's the cost breakdown:   $20 for the T8 electronic ballast $28 for the four T8 LED bulbs ----------------- %50 roughly, for the retrofit   Is that my best option?

Ralph Mowery <rmowery28146@earthlink.net>: Nov 02 11:13PM -0400 In article <nve8lv$st4$2@news.mixmin.net>, moi@example.com says...   > What's so bad about a 40W tube versus a 32W tube? > Is the 8 watts really a big deal?   > Or is there some other reason to ban "fat" tubes?   It could be the 8 watts or more likely the makeup of the tube. Less glass and material. The tubes do contain mercury so less of that to deal with. They kept cutting down on the mercury in the t12 tubes and someetimes they would not start up if it was much below 50 deg F. Not sure of the makeup of the coating on the inside ot the tubes, but less used there also.   I worked in a large company that had thousands of bulbs. Toward the last of the t12 tubes we had many that would not start up and this was in a room that was over 70 deg F.

Bill Moinihan <moi@example.com>: Nov 03 02:27AM Andy Burns wrote:   > tubes and their ballasts are wired differently on each side of the > Atlantic, but over here converting a fluorescent fitting to LEDs usually > involves removing the ballast and starter, is that not the case over there?   You've hit upon the major flaw of my "retrofit".   I wanted to get rid of the fluorescent, especially since one of them buzzes loudly. But I don't want to spend hundreds of dollars just now.   People suggested LEDs for two reasons: a. Energy cost b. Convenience   I think the solution I came up with, which fits into a fixture with T8 ballast, is hitting me on both:   A. I don't see how it saves energy yet, since it's the same ballast B. The T8 LEDs may burn out far more quickly since it's a T12 ballast   On the first point, I admit I'm confused. How can it save *any* energy, if the ballast is the same?   The LED box says "Uses 47% less energy" where it clarifies that in the small print saying "47% energy savings is based on the difference between using a 17W LED replacement lamp, compared to using a 32W fluorescent lamp with an electronic ballast. Performance varies based on ballast type. Your savings will depend on your rates, fluorescent lamp (sic) you are replacing and actual hours of operation.   In my case, I have the non-electronic ballast, and it's 40Watts. I'm confused.   Plus my energy costs are three times the 11 cents they seem to use in the LED light numbers.   So, I'm confused.   Does any of this mean I'll get more or less than the roughly half savings of energy costs?   How?

Bill Moinihan <moi@example.com>: Nov 03 02:50AM Meanie wrote:   > they had to be direct wired (removal of ballasts). Now they've made LEDs > to use the existing ballasts as it's driver. Though, that could still > differ based on geographic location.   I don't know anything about LED tubes but if it was "direct wire" that might be better because who needs the ballast anyway?   I don't even understand what the ballast even does, in the case of the LED tubes.   Do you?

Bill Moinihan <moi@example.com>: Nov 03 03:39AM Ralph Mowery wrote:   > It could be the 8 watts or more likely the makeup of the tube. Less > glass and material. The tubes do contain mercury so less of that to > deal with.   It's not obvious why they banned 40 Watts but kept 32 Watts (which seems miniscule of a difference).   Googling, I found this: Why did US Department of Energy discontinued the T12 lights? http://www.t5fixtures.com/why-did-us-department-of-energy-discontinued-the-t12-lights/   Here is a direct quote of the main reason: "T12 light bulbs were becoming extremely inefficient"   Here is a second direct quote of the secondary reason: "Polychlorinaed Biphenyls are used in T12 fixture ballast manufacturing"   Huh? Why would a T12 ballast use PCBs while a T8 ballast wouldn't? Makes no sense to me. Does it make sense to you?   Googling some more, I find this: The Case Against T12 Bulbs that Invited the Ban   https://www.shineretrofits.com/knowledge-base/lighting-learning-center/are-t12-lamps-really-banned.html   Which says (verbatim): "the conventional four-foot T12 lamp still consumes a whopping 40 watts every hour. On the other hand, the more modern T8 lamp consumes anything between 25 and 32 watts of energy in an hour."   So I guess the 8 watts mattered to the DOE.   SImilarly, it says "The T12 lamps are not long-lasting", but, since when does the DOE care about how long bulbs last (especially since incandescents don't last all that long either).   Now we get to the hazardous waste where it says "T12 lamps release toxic mercury and PCB waste products".   Huh? Why would T12s release more of these than T8s?

Bill Moinihan <moi@example.com>: Nov 03 03:39AM danny burstein wrote:   > My head hurts on trying to figure out just how a legacy > ballast can worh with a retrofitted LED tube, but > they do. I've installed a few of them.   I only yesterday figured out how (by looking it up) a legacy ballast works with LED tubes, but I couldn't find an article that explains how it works with LEDs.     > Again, these are NOT the exact numbers, > but there definitely was a savings when > using the drop in replacements.   Thanks for providing that reference information. I have to admit, the two 4-bulb lamps currently with the LEDs in them are brighter than the sun it seems, at least in a garage they are.   Compared to the fluorescents, they rock with light output!   I just hope they last, given they are T8s on a T12 ballast.

Bill Moinihan <moi@example.com>: Nov 03 03:39AM Ralph Mowery wrote:     > If going to the LED type bulbs you may not even need the ballast. I > have not replaced any flourscent with the LED in the same fixture so can > not comment on that.   It would be nice if I can just cut out the ballast altogether. Maybe the LED bulbs work with or without the ballast? I'll call Feit tomorrow to ask if that's possible.

Bill Moinihan <moi@example.com>: Nov 03 02:50AM Meanie wrote:   > Correct. T12 are obsolete.   Thanks for confirming. The funny thing is that the only difference is the diameter (and the wattage), so, it's odd that they're "obsolete" just because they're a bit fatter.   What's so bad about a 40W tube versus a 32W tube? Is the 8 watts really a big deal?   Or is there some other reason to ban "fat" tubes?   >> Thanks for saying that one controls outer and one controls inner. >> Is that the standard setup?   > Yes. The other set up would be a single four lamp ballast.   Since I think I have two bad ballasts, the single four-lamp ballast for 20 bucks is what I'm gonna get tomorrow at Home Depot (if they have it).   > Correct. A T8 is supposed to be 1 inch in diameter.   I measured the T8 LED with a ruler and it was close to one inch, but the T12 was off by a lot. It was 1-3/8ths of an inch, or a T11 in diameter.   > wires connects with the two wires from each lamp. Thus, the single red > will connect to the two yellows, one blue will connect to two blues and > the other blue will connect to the two reds.   Hmmm... that sounds like exactly the same setup, only different colors. I guess the colors actually "mean" something then... 'cuz color is the only difference on the outside. > asap to ensure long life of the ballast. When a lamp isn't working, the > ballast continuously attempts igniting the non-working lamp and that > decreases the life of the ballast.   Thank you for that hint, as I did not know that. They never taught me anything about this stuff in school.   Given out of 16 bulbs I took out, only about half were still working, so I'm surprised only one ballast was outright dead (with another suspect).

Bill Moinihan <moi@example.com>: Nov 03 04:25AM Bill Moinihan wrote:   > Now we get to the hazardous waste where it says "T12 lamps release toxic > mercury and PCB waste products".   > Huh? Why would T12s release more of these than T8s?   Reading more, I think they are just making most of this stuff up.   This article lists all the stuff that was retired: http://www.ledsource.com/blog/light-bulb-ban-continues-t8-700-series-fluorescent-tube/     100 watt and 150 watt incandescent A-lamp – banned January 1, 2012 75 watt incandescent A-lamp – banned January 1, 2013 60 watt incandescent A-lamp – banned January 1, 2014 40 watt incandescent A-lamp – banned January 1, 2014   T8 single-pin fluorescent 8 foot slim and high-output – banned January 2009 Most reflector lamps over 50 watts (except some 65W) – July 1, 2010 Magnetic ballasts for many standard fluorescent lamps – July 1, 2010 T12 fluorescent tubes 4 foot – banned July 14, 2012 T12 fluorescent tubes 2 foot U-Bend – banned July 14, 2012 T12 fluorescent tubes 8 foot (slim and high output)– banned July 14, 2012 T8 with low CRI – banned July 14, 2012 (DOE changed CRI to 87 in April 2011) PAR20, PAR30, PAR38 Halogen standard lamps (within 40W to 205W) – banned July 14, 2012   So it just seems to be an "efficiency" thing since they all have different secondary reasons.

Bill Moinihan <moi@example.com>: Nov 03 04:25AM Jeff Liebermann wrote:   > Ahem... There are other LED failure modes: > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_LED_failure_modes>   That article lists: - The package components yellow - Thermal expansion & contraction cause components to crack - Phosphor degeneration - Nucleation - EM - ionizing radiation - Metal melting on the chip - Whiskers shorting out traces - thermal runaway - current crowding - electrostatic discharge - reverse bias

Bill Moinihan <moi@example.com>: Nov 03 04:26AM Ralph Mowery wrote:   > If going to the LED type bulbs you may not even need the ballast. I > have not replaced any flourscent with the LED in the same fixture so can > not comment on that.   This bulb seems to simply require me to "bypass the ballast": http://www.ledsource.com/products/effinion-lt-series-led-tubes/

HerHusband <unknown@unknown.com>: Nov 03 04:28AM Bill,   > fluorescent lights. Maybe that's because the T12 ballast is > "overdriving" them? I don't know, but it's like daylight in the garage > now with 12 of them lighting up the ceiling.   Your package photo shows a lumen output of just 1700 lumens, compared to around 2800 lumens for a fluorescent bulb. So technically it's putting out LESS light.   Your old bulbs were probably dimming with age and giving off a bit more of a "warm" glow. Your new LED's have a whiter light, which can make them seem brighter when they really aren't.   In any case, as long as you're happy with the light output it doesn't really matter.   Take care,   Anthony Watson www.watsondiy.com www.mountainsoftware.com

"pfjw@aol.com" <pfjw@aol.com>: Nov 03 04:28AM -0700 On Thursday, November 3, 2016 at 12:29:15 AM UTC-4, HerHusband wrote:   > Your package photo shows a lumen output of just 1700 lumens, compared to > around 2800 lumens for a fluorescent bulb. So technically it's putting out > LESS light.   OK - A few things on the nature of LEDs and the nature of Fluorescent lamps, and the nature of ballasts, magnetic or electronic:   a) LED lamp/tube/whatever emitters are flat devices mounted on some surface that distributes the light in a 'designed' manner. A fluorescent tube emits light in all directions, much of which is absorbed by the surrounding sheet metal (remember back in the day, reflective shields were added above the tubes to capture some of this light and in a 4-tube fixture, usually two were removed to 'save energy') LED tubes do not have this failing and direct most of their light were it is actually useful. So, lower lumens, more light.   b) Fluorescent lamps can lose more than 60% of their output and still function. Most, however, crap out at about 70% of original output. But one run continuously may go as low as 40% before actual failure - which is when the filament at either end or both ends fails.   c) 'Magnetic' ballasts are just like any other transformer-based device. They do not "PUSH" current, what is connected to then "PULLS" the current. So more efficient lamps will *pull* less current.   d) Electronic ballasts are switching devices, and also do not PUSH. Nor do 'bad lamps' affect them as badly as they do magnetic ballasts. Typically, they do not overheat or die from that process. They die, mostly, from the failure of some internal component such as a capacitor.   e) Putting a T8 lamp on a T12 ballast will vastly shorten the life of the lamp, UNLESS the ballasts is marked specifically as T8/T12 compliant. A T12 ballast runs at a higher voltage than a T8 ballast. Again, switching ballasts are often designed to 'sense' what is connected to them.   So, guys and gals, the choice as to whether to convert or purchase new is one that should purely be made on the basis of saving landfill and/or mine-to-landfill cost analysis - after which comes energy efficiency. Making a new fixture takes energy from some source, the processing of materials either 'new' or 'recycled' or some combination of both, and the shipping of that material to a user. Whereupon it is used-up or consumed and the detritus is either landfilled or recycled. There are costs associated with every step, in cash and in environmental impacts. The energy associated with a new fixture, disposing of the old and environmental considerations will offset a great deal of energy used by an old fixture, if it is otherwise operating efficiently. But, if it is not, then one owes the future the decision to go with the fixture that has the lowest overall impact on the environment - from when the raw materials are mined or refined to how much of it could be recycled in the future, to the actual cost of disposal, to the energy used during its life.   And why it is, thereby, that first-cost should almost NEVER be a deciding factor when making any purchase of any nature of any item/appliance that consumes energy as its primary function.   Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA

Klay Anderson <klay@klay.com>: Nov 03 05:25AM -0700 On Tuesday, November 1, 2016 at 5:07:03 PM UTC-6, Bill Moinihan wrote:   > > There are four of these sets of lights, each of which holds 4 flourescent > > bulbs, which keep flickering, burning out, and making humming sounds.   > What do you think, honestly, of this idea?   Buying the wrong thing at any price is still....buying the wrong thing. We have been importing LED T8 since 2010. The BEST method is to ignore the "works with ballast" claims (most do NOT) and get tubes that work directly. Remove the ballast, take LINE to one end of the tube, NEUTRAL to the other (there is usually enough wire internally to do this using cutters and a wire nut or two) and be done with it. These tubes are generally the same price. Also use a CORRECT color temperature. For most applications, we use 4000K. Warm offices, 3000K. You don't need no stinking ballast, folks.   Klay

N_Cook <diverse@tcp.co.uk>: Nov 03 09:46AM On 02/11/2016 13:36, N_Cook wrote: > I'd wired in the train of 5 Shottky SMD diodes , the wrong way round so > no biasing, doh!   So far good output level match and sinuosity with no load ,with 1KHz input at 60% mains ,and reasonable biasing DC levels match between L and R channels with original preset setting. Will add 8R loads and repeat these tests and adjust bias while still at 60% mains ,interim, before going up to 100% mains

Paul <nospam@needed.invalid>: Nov 02 11:48PM -0400 Diesel wrote:   > It still doesn't surprise me to see people posting... at best, ill > advice while making a smartarse comment concerning others lack of > knowledge on the subject.   Here's an example of a car battery that won't explode.   Like a D-cell for your flashlight, you "throw it away" at your destination.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium%E2%80%93air_battery   *That's* how you get a vehicle which has only an electric motor, half way across the country. I haven't seen a price listed for the aluminum, to see just how uncompetitive it is.   Paul

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.