- wire conductivity - 6 Updates
- Lithium powered things not charging? - 11 Updates
- my washing machine, again - 1 Update
| John Robertson <spam@flippers.com>: Jan 07 10:48AM -0800 > Last question: when soldered is the joint as conductive as copper solder copper ? > Silver melts streams off solder joins copper copper with a low % aluminum. > I used the new aluminum clad wire giving a less conductive result but there are other available reasons for the result so a redo. Maybe a direct conparison. Is there a potential problem with clad wire in temperature extremes? Will the layers shed in extreme (-40C) cold or heat (100C)? Or is that not extreme enough? Just asking... John |
| avagadro7@gmail.com: Jan 07 02:43PM -0800 no, in the 1930's rubber insulation decayed against copper so cladding was produced. Aluminum cladding ( I read this last night ) did not adhere to copper but the Westinghouse patent covering copper with silver produced a functioning AL outer layer .....for lower temps on the surface or greater resistance to degradation from outside heat sources...I'm not sure which or both. Thus, with a fine multiple strand wire there is more conductivity, less degradation more flex with a smaller space occupation. Maybe more effective bundling ? that's what the material suggests. I read the answer to my question of not flowing thru less resistance toward the center of a copper wire with a thicker AL cladding as the outer areas of conductivity are geometrically larger supplying more free electrons in this Cu AL apparently topping more conductive copper below. now tell me why that wire is more resistive ? as per common knowledge. |
| Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com>: Jan 07 07:48PM -0800 > >"The advantage is lower weight compared to pure copper, leading to > > more dBs per watt. " > Depends on the application, the advantage might be negligible. ** So what? If make no odds then makers use plain copper. JBL have been using aluminium wire on their instrument speakers for many decades to increase efficiency. CCA is easier to work with and solder. .... Phil |
| isw <isw@witzend.com>: Jan 07 08:21PM -0800 In article <231306ca-50e4-45c6-a91b-bd3d60812c89@googlegroups.com>, > >>SNIPPAGE<< > a) Wire conductivity, irrespective of material, is a function of surface area > and gauge amongst other factors. It's mostly a function of cross-section area at DC. As frequency rises and skin effect begins to be important, surface area starts to matter, so more, finer strands might be better, *but only if the individual strands are insulated from each other*. Isaac |
| isw <isw@witzend.com>: Jan 07 08:24PM -0800 In article <N5ydneYpyOkclO3FnZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>, > cheaper than copper. They did use aluminum wire INSIDE houses in the US > around 1966-1968, and it burned a lot of houses down, due to the cold flow > of aluminum weakening the contact force. ISTR that the problem was mostly that electricians couldn't be bothered to learn the new techniques and so on that were mandatory to install the stuff safely. It was only when it was installed just like Cu that it was prone to overheating. Isaac |
| avagadro7@gmail.com: Jan 08 07:49AM -0800 On Saturday, January 7, 2017 at 11:21:52 PM UTC-5, isw wrote: > so more, finer strands might be better, *but only if the individual > strands are insulated from each other*. > Isaac explain cross section electron availability for an aluminum/silver/copper wire or aluminum/copper where cladding cross section is thin ? |
| T i m <news@spaced.me.uk>: Jan 07 04:48PM Hi all and HNY. Daughter recently bought a 'refurbished' Samsumg Galaxy Tab2 10.1" (tablet) and it seemed ok at first. However, the supplier forgot to include the charger. She called them and in spite of requesting a genuine Samsung one, they sent her a generic jobby (and only 650mA). Along the way (and not helped by the charger thing) she's allowed it to go flat and now it won't charge up again (I've tried various chargers, inc a 2A Samsung one) and after Googling about it looks like this (sort of thing) is a known problem with these Lithium batteries and Samsung tablets (and probably other makes and devices as well etc). One solution seems to be to pop the back off, pull the battery connector, refit the battery and away it (often) goes but it is also suggested that if you get to that low voltage state again, it will / could lock up again. ;-( However, one chap on Youtube suggests a more permanent 'fix' by the addition of a small 'bypass' diode and whilst I'm happy to do that (I was a field support guy, years ago and still try to keep my hand in with basic repairs), I thought I'd ask here if it sounds 'sensible'? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ggQU3E01IQ I'm not able to work out where on the diagram he put the diode or if it has any other (negative?) impact. He starts to show the schematics from 4:20 onwards and there are also links to them and the full service manual in the text. Ours is a GT-P5100, as are the manuals he links to but he seems to be discussing the GT-P3100 (the 7" model and may not have the same PCB layout for someone old / simple like me to follow <g>)? Obviously our first port of call will be the supplier but we didn't want to go though the trouble of sending it back, for them to disconnect the battery and send it back to us, only for it to lock up again later.? ;-( Basically she was just looking for a 3g 10" tablet that was 'nice' to use and that she could afford and the s/u 10" Tab2 seemed to fit the bill. Thanks for your time in any case. ;-) Cheers, T i m |
| Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk>: Jan 07 05:19PM T i m wrote: > she's allowed it to go flat and now it won't charge up again How long have you left it on charge? Some items take a surprisingly long time to get enough "initial" charge into them from flat to show any sign of charging let alone being willing to boot ... |
| T i m <news@spaced.me.uk>: Jan 07 07:07PM On Sat, 7 Jan 2017 17:19:12 +0000, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote: >T i m wrote: >> she's allowed it to go flat and now it won't charge up again >How long have you left it on charge? A couple of hours (before trying something else). The thing is, the loop it's in (shows charging screen then seems to reboot etc) doesn't seem to be conducive to it even taking any charge? ;-( >Some items take a surprisingly long time to get enough "initial" charge >into them from flat to show any sign of charging let alone being willing >to boot ... Understood. Cheers, T i m |
| mike <ham789@netzero.net>: Jan 07 11:48AM -0800 On 1/7/2017 8:48 AM, T i m wrote: > links to but he seems to be discussing the GT-P3100 (the 7" model and > may not have the same PCB layout for someone old / simple like me to > follow <g>)? You have an unknown source suggesting some vague fix that defeats charging protocols using an unknown "diode" not clearly defined on the schematic to a DIFFERENT tablet made by Samsung, the poster child for lithium battery safety. How many bad signs do you need before you determine that this is too risky?? Not at all clear exactly what he's doing. If he's adding a parallel charging path thru the unspecified diode, I'd suggest that it's a time-bomb. You'd need at least three silicon junction diodes and a series resistor. I would never, ever, suggest that anyone try such a stupid thing. Another thing that I believe is overlooked. When you modify a device in an unsafe manner, you risk harming yourself and those around you. If you let ANYONE else use it, or steal it, or sell it to someone, you put THEM at a risk that they're not even aware of. If it's sold at your estate sale, all your good intentions to remove the mod are worthless. |
| ohger1s@gmail.com: Jan 07 12:36PM -0800 On Saturday, January 7, 2017 at 11:48:40 AM UTC-5, T i m wrote: > bill. > Thanks for your time in any case. ;-) > Cheers, T i m Seems to me this is best fixed at the software level. Is there a firmware update available, or have you tried contacting Samsung? |
| T i m <news@spaced.me.uk>: Jan 07 09:25PM On Sat, 07 Jan 2017 11:48:01 -0800, mike <ham789@netzero.net> wrote: <snip> >defeats charging protocols using an unknown >"diode" not clearly defined on the schematic to a DIFFERENT tablet >made by Samsung, Potentially yes. He *could* know exactly what he's doing (he looks like he might) but he also may have no idea (so point noted). > the poster child for lithium battery safety. Didn't know that, thanks. >How many bad signs do you need before you determine that this is too >risky?? Well, to be fair I wasn't going to even attempt anything (if I ever did) until several other avenues had been exhausted but again. I do get your point / caution. >Not at all clear exactly what he's doing. >If he's adding a parallel charging path If you have followed his idea and see that's exactly what he is doing then fair enough. If not (and playing devils advocate for a second) then couldn't it (possibly?) be a nifty / safe solution? >thru the unspecified diode, Unspecified other than a "a std rectification' diode you mean, or were you still talking about it's roll? (The other day I fixed an electronic motorcycle speedo for a friend by replacing the remains (through water ingress / corrosion) of some SM diode with a 4001 I happened to have a load of. It seems to work ok but isn't charging a battery of course.<g>) >I'd suggest that it's a time-bomb. I do understand your caution so thanks for that. >You'd need at least three silicon junction diodes and a series resistor. >I would never, ever, suggest that anyone try such a stupid thing. Understood ... and that's why I asked if anyone could 'vet' what was proposed here. ;-) >Another thing that I believe is overlooked. >When you modify a device in an unsafe manner, you risk harming yourself >and those around you. Understood ... but I would prefer to see it as 'if' rather that when as not all cases *will* be inherently dangerous (even if they weren't fully considered or technically correct). Like, loads of people have simply unplugged and replugged the battery in such 'non-charging' situations but how do we know if that also isn't potentially bypassing some safety function? >you put THEM at a risk that they're not even aware of. If it's sold >at your estate sale, all your good intentions to remove the mod >are worthless. Understood. There are many jobs I could easily undertake but where the thought of something going wrong, even if nothing to do with my input, doesn't bear thinking about ... so I don't. What I call the 'what if' factor. Just OOI if I may Mike, do you ever buy any unbranded electronics ... phone chargers, cables, battery packs etc? I ask because I understand some of these sort of things are also not built with the same level of safety in mind that we might assume and pay for in some of the (hopefully) better branded kit? (genuine question). Thanks for your feedback. ;-) Cheers, T i m |
| T i m <news@spaced.me.uk>: Jan 07 09:32PM On Sat, 7 Jan 2017 12:36:43 -0800 (PST), ohger1s@gmail.com wrote: <snip> >Seems to me this is best fixed at the software level. I prefer that idea, that's for sure but to find out I'll need to get some charge in the battery. ;-) >Is there a firmware update available, I can't be 100% sure but daughter may have accepted an update or two when she first got the unit but I'm not sure she's remember what they were if there were. >or have you tried contacting Samsung? No, I haven't yet because this being a second user device, I felt my first port of call would be the supplier. I have read many who have contacted Samsung and if it was in warranty they were sent back and repaired or replaced and if out they suggested the customer bought a new one. I will get daughter to email the supplier for Monday, possibly requesting a full refund and treat her to the difference on a new Tab A 10.1 (with a 2 year warranty). Cheers, T i m |
| Wayne Chirnside <faux@notthere.com>: Jan 07 10:31PM On Sat, 07 Jan 2017 16:48:38 +0000, T i m wrote: > bill. > Thanks for your time in any case. ;-) > Cheers, T i m Charge initially at a very low rate until the protection circuitry sees a voltage higher than 3V from each cell in the battery, then charge normally. If it doesn't take a charge then it's dead. |
| T i m <news@spaced.me.uk>: Jan 07 11:13PM On Sat, 07 Jan 2017 22:31:40 GMT, Wayne Chirnside <faux@notthere.com> wrote: <snip> >Charge initially at a very low rate until the protection circuitry sees a >voltage higher than 3V from each cell in the battery, then charge >normally. I don't think I can do that from the 'outside' as it doesn't seem to accept any charge at all. I will try it again tomorrow (when we are here) and see what happens. >If it doesn't take a charge then it's dead. I have an intelligent charger than can do all battery types (charge, discharge / balance) but to do that I'd have to get the back off and the battery out. The suggestion is that even if the unit was 'recovered' that way, there is a good chance it could lockup again, if left to go flat (that shouldn't typically be flat past std external charger recovery). I have several tablets and all have at some time or another been left 'on' (standby) for some period, gone flat but recharged ok afterwards (so far anyway). ;-) We will speak to the supplier on Monday and see what they say and if they offer to replace the unit with another (A1 refurbish) that they allow the replacement to go flat to ensure that one recovers ok. Cheers, T i m |
| mike <ham789@netzero.net>: Jan 07 07:56PM -0800 On 1/7/2017 1:25 PM, T i m wrote: >> made by Samsung, > Potentially yes. He *could* know exactly what he's doing (he looks > like he might) but he also may have no idea (so point noted). MIGHT? Sure, he might...but he also may catch fire. Are you feeling lucky with your daughter's life? house? >> the poster child for lithium battery safety. > Didn't know that, thanks. Unless you've been living off the grid you couldn't escape the hoopla over the Samsung Galaxy Note 7 battery fires. >> If he's adding a parallel charging path > If you have followed his idea and see that's exactly what he is doing > then fair enough. I couldn't tell where on the schematic he put the diode or the type of diode. We could certainly guess the type of diode. If he had the EXACT tablet as yours, with the SAME hardware version and the SAME firmware version and he disclosed the EXACT connections on the schematic and we had specs for all the relevant chips, I'd be much more inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. If not (and playing devils advocate for a second) > then couldn't it (possibly?) be a nifty / safe solution? Possibly. Are you feeling lucky? I suggest that if it's a widespread problem with a solution that simple, you'd read a lot more about it from verifiable sources. If your car heater is busted and someone suggested that you should put an open container of gasoline on the front seat and set it on fire, would you try it? I'm quite sure you'd be warmer if you did that. I couldn't tell where on the schematic he placed the diode. The schematic shows the protection chip, so it looks like he may be defeating some or ALL of the circuitry that controls the charging process, possibly affecting the full charge detection. That is an extremely bad idea. Do you think he is likely to more about this than the people who make/use the chip in production? Another alternative is to bypass the chip and apply some charge to directly to the battery until it reaches the threshold where the protection chip can take over. There are two serious problems with this. If you just use a diode, you're gonna supply all the current the charger can supply. Maybe that's two amps? Let's say it's only one amp. If the diode voltage is at the max spec, it might be 1.2V. So, at 1 amp that's 1.2 watts and the diode will melt the solder and fall off, landing who knows where. Second, it's risky to try to recover a lithium battery that's been discharged below the minimum voltage. If you do, you need to use LOW current. The diode provides HIGH current...very bad. You fix the current with a resistor in series with the diode. Now, you have to worry about maximum voltage. At nominal 5.000V charger voltage and nominal 0.7V diode drop, that leaves you with 4.3V on the battery. That's not good. I've seen chargers with nominal 5.3V at low current. That puts your battery at 4.6V. That's asking for a fire. If the diode overheated, it may be leaky, making things worse. If you use two silicon junction diodes and a resistor, you start to get into the range of possibility. Three diodes is even better, but then you run into the possibility that the battery will never reach the voltage needed for the protection chip to take over. THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS. We don't know ANY of the details of the charging circuit or what his mod does. But, we can surely guess. >> thru the unspecified diode, > Unspecified other than a "a std rectification' diode you mean, or were > you still talking about it's roll? What is a std rectification diode? How do you know that's what he used? He did suggest removing a random diode from another tablet/phone. If it's a schottkey diode, the voltage is lower and might have significant effect on how it works...maybe...we don't know. > replacing the remains (through water ingress / corrosion) of some SM > diode with a 4001 I happened to have a load of. It seems to work ok > but isn't charging a battery of course. A 1N4001 diode always works, until it doesn't. You had the ability to test the result and determine that the circuit works. I suggest that you haven't the knowledge or equipment to validate a lithium battery charger mod...or you wouldn't have asked the question. Since it's not your tablet, you'll not be around to notice any telltale signs of danger. > simply unplugged and replugged the battery in such 'non-charging' > situations but how do we know if that also isn't potentially bypassing > some safety function? Wouldn't be the first time that something seemingly simple and impossible to screw up caused a major screw up. Won't be the last either. Samsung can't even get it right on their second try of the Note 7. > thought of something going wrong, even if nothing to do with my input, > doesn't bear thinking about ... so I don't. What I call the 'what if' > factor. This is one of those times. > some of these sort of things are also not built with the same level of > safety in mind that we might assume and pay for in some of the > (hopefully) better branded kit? (genuine question). I don't think you can tell any more. Paying more doesn't guarantee better stuff. The name is no longer sufficient. Most everything these days is bought from the cheapest bidder. The seller slaps his label on it and charges big bux. The next one you buy from the same vendor may be completely different. If you treat the tablet and charger as a system, you can save money by leaving out some parts. The manual probably says, "don't ever use any charger other than the one supplied." How many of us heed that warning? Even if the designer had it all figgered out, that's still no guarantee. I've had situations where purchasing decided unilaterally to change a part to save a few cents. I didn't learn about it until the production line shut down. Just like your example. "It's just a std. diode." Unless it isn't. I buy almost all my stuff busted at garage sales. I have an electrical engineering degree and 40 years design experience. I almost always get it close enough to right. ALMOST! I once set a laptop on fire while charging the battery. I assumed that the designers had some common sense. I was wrong. The charge current limit was in the external charger, not anywhere near the battery. Label says 19VDC, but if you apply 19VDC, you let the smoke out. The internet is a very dangerous place. It's a great place to get ideas, but implementation is often lacking. Most people who post stuff haven't a clue. They take a narrow view of the problem/solution. Often it doesn't matter. Sometimes, it sets you on fire. Get your ideas from the web. VERIFY the solution and do your own math. Implement what you can verify and/or test. Even if you think you know what you're doing, it's extremely difficult to test for stuff you never anticipated or couldn't simulate. We learned that from the design of the Hubble Space Telescope. Are we having fun yet? |
| T i m <news@spaced.me.uk>: Jan 08 09:07AM >> Potentially yes. He *could* know exactly what he's doing (he looks >> like he might) but he also may have no idea (so point noted). >MIGHT? Yup. > Sure, he might... Exactly. ;-) >but he also may catch fire. True, but it might not. My point is that unless we know *exactly* how his mod works we can't determine if it is a potentially safe or dangerous one. >Are you feeling >lucky with your daughter's life? house? The thing is (and subject to the thoughts above), there could be loads of things we use that are inherently dangerous, like tumble dryers or any other battery or charger so it needs to be taken in the right perspective. >> Didn't know that, thanks. >Unless you've been living off the grid you couldn't escape the hoopla >over the Samsung Galaxy Note 7 battery fires. Ah that, sure (a mate had one on order but it was cancelled by Samsung). >> then fair enough. >I couldn't tell where on the schematic he put the diode or the type of >diode. Well I can do the latter as he tells us in the video. It's a general purpose, SM (ideally for the small size) 2A rectification diode, as typically found on phones and tablets etc. We could certainly guess the type of diode. >If he had the EXACT tablet as yours, Or a tablet from the same manufacturer and series ... > with the SAME hardware version Or that shared a common circuit design ... >and the SAME firmware version It may not be firmware dependant but I do get your points etc ... > and he disclosed the EXACT connections >on the schematic Ok. >and we had specs for all the relevant chips, I'd be much >more inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. Well I believe we have the former as he references the service manual and schematics for the exact same model I have. >Possibly. Are you feeling lucky? I suggest that if it's >a widespread problem with a solution that simple, you'd read >a lot more about it from verifiable sources. Well yes, and such may be out there but how many people are up for opening their devices *and* soldering stuff in? >should put an open container of gasoline on the front seat >and set it on fire, would you try it? I'm quite sure >you'd be warmer if you did that. I think that may be a slight over-exaggeration Mike. ;-) >I couldn't tell where on the schematic he placed the diode. Ok, that is key information for me. >The schematic shows the protection chip, so it looks like he >may be defeating some or ALL of the circuitry that controls >the charging process, possibly affecting the full charge detection. Ok. >That is >an extremely bad idea. Agreed. >Do you think he is likely to more about this >than the people who make/use the chip in production? Are you suggesting that no manufacturer hasn't ever price engineered a solution or made a mistake with the design? Have you never seen hand re-mapped circuit boards, cut tracks or components that were obviously never designed to fit that board? Have you never heard of a product make or model that was known to be unreliable and/or be recalled for safety reasons? Did you hear about the Note 7? <weg> >Another alternative is to bypass the chip and apply some charge to directly >to the battery until it reaches the threshold where the protection >chip can take over. Yes, but as he says, that may not prevent the same thing from happening again (the next time the tablet is allowed to go flat). >If the diode voltage is at the max spec, it might be 1.2V. So, at 1 amp >that's 1.2 watts and the diode will melt the solder and fall off, landing >who knows where. Understood. >Second, it's risky to try to recover a lithium battery that's been >discharged below the minimum voltage. If you do, you need to use LOW >current. The diode provides HIGH current...very bad. Understood. >I've seen chargers with nominal 5.3V at low current. That puts your >battery at 4.6V. That's asking for a fire. >If the diode overheated, it may be leaky, making things worse. Understood. >to get into the range of possibility. Three diodes is even better, >but then you run into the possibility that the battery will never reach >the voltage needed for the protection chip to take over. Understood. >THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS. We don't know ANY of the details of the >charging circuit or what his mod does. Well, my general understanding is that the diode mod 'bypasses' (his words) a part of the circuit that allows for a battery to be recovered from an over-discharged state. Now, it may do so by using the existing charging circuitry but kick starting the detection stage, rather than passing the actual charge itself. >But, we can surely guess. That was why I asked here Mike <g>. In the past people have been able to look at a photograph of a PCB that I have presented and work out exactly how it worked! ;-) >> Unspecified other than a "a std rectification' diode you mean, or were >> you still talking about it's roll? >What is a std rectification diode? A general purpose device to be used in a known environment. So, if we are talking about a Tablet then we won't be needing a device able to handle 600 volts or 100 GHz. >How do you know that's what he used? Because he tells us in the video. >He did suggest removing a random diode from another tablet/phone. >If it's a schottkey diode, the voltage is lower and might have significant >effect on how it works...maybe...we don't know. Understood. >> diode with a 4001 I happened to have a load of. It seems to work ok >> but isn't charging a battery of course. >A 1N4001 diode always works, until it doesn't. ;-) >You had the ability to test >the result and determine that the circuit works. As our guy in the video did ... and all those who also did as he suggested and fixed their tablets? >I suggest that you haven't the knowledge or equipment to validate a lithium >battery charger mod...or you wouldn't have asked the question. Agreed. >Since >it's not your tablet, you'll not be around to notice any telltale signs >of danger. In this case daughter still lives with us so I probably would. <snip> >Wouldn't be the first time that something seemingly simple and impossible >to screw up caused a major screw up. Won't be the last either. Quite. >Samsung can't even get it right on their second try of the Note 7. Quite. >> doesn't bear thinking about ... so I don't. What I call the 'what if' >> factor. >This is one of those times. Ok. ;-) >> (hopefully) better branded kit? (genuine question). >I don't think you can tell any more. Paying more doesn't guarantee >better stuff. Exactly. >days is bought from the cheapest bidder. The seller slaps his label >on it and charges big bux. The next one you buy from the same vendor >may be completely different. Yup. ;-( >by leaving out some parts. The manual probably says, "don't ever use >any charger other than the one supplied." How many of us heed that >warning? Well, I'd say we try to because I have been involved with 'electronics' for over 50 years I have probably a better understanding of the rules and risks than many 'ordinary folk' and do take notice of the charger volts and current capacity etc. I have also been playing with rechargeable batteries for nearly as long and still have a road going electric car and designed, built and raced an electric motorbike (raced as it was more 'endurance / range' than racing as such). I used the word 'played' there because I wouldn't see / offer myself as an expert in any of it. >Even if the designer had it all figgered out, that's still no guarantee. Ok. >I've had situations where purchasing decided unilaterally to change a part >to save a few cents. I didn't learn about it until the production line >shut down. So was I and it was a big eye opener. >Just like your example. "It's just a std. diode." Unless it isn't. Yes, true, except in those situations where it really doesn't matter as long it 'works'. >I buy almost all my stuff busted at garage sales. We don't have them over here (Uk) but we do have boot sales (Trunk sales?) and Freecycle and the like. >I have an electrical engineering degree and 40 years design experience. And that's why I am happy to defer to you and many of the 'experts' here because whilst I did 'design' some of my own circuits, I would generally just be following the component datasheets or borrowing bits from similar circuit designs.As a component level bench and field *support* tech, I was fine as long as I had the schematics, scope, iron and test gear. ;-) >I almost always get it close enough to right. >ALMOST! I like to do similar and hence why I often ask advice from those who know. Whilst my version will often work, it may not be the most efficient design. That said, I have provided feedback to others (who were designers) who have consequently modified their designs because of my input (the last was a 4 way battery charger switcher where a failed relay could allow two 12V to become connected in parallel. My design mod meant that it would always fail 'safe'. ;-) >I once set a laptop on fire while charging the battery. Not done that ... yet! ;-( >I assumed that >the designers had some common sense. What do they say about 'assumption' Mike. ;-) >charge current limit >was in the external charger, not anywhere near the battery. Label says >19VDC, but if you apply 19VDC, you let the smoke out. Ah. >The internet is a very dangerous place. Agreed. >Most people who post stuff haven't a clue. They take a narrow >view of the problem/solution. Often it doesn't matter. >Sometimes, it sets you on fire. Ok. ;-) >Get your ideas from the web. VERIFY the solution and do your own math. Yup ... that's exactly what I was doing here. ;-) >know what you're doing, it's extremely difficult to test for stuff you >never anticipated or couldn't simulate. We learned that from the design >of the Hubble Space Telescope. We did indeed. >Are we having fun yet? I think so, and learning / reinforcing stuff at the same time. ;-) I spoke to daughter when she came in last night and I will probably contact the supplier with her on Monday and start the returns ball rolling. In light of this 'issue' I think (as I mentioned) offer to put the difference towards a brand new tablet for her, as at least our investment would be protected for the next two years. Cheers, T i m |
| Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com>: Jan 07 12:13PM -0600 > I shall not buy new appliances. > Want more reason for that ? Look up a site called "Made By Monkeys". After > reading that for a while you won't want anything new. Well, this thing uses SO MUCH LESS water than our old machine, that it was immediately clear in our water bills! So, I'm not going back. And, our water is getting quite expensive, especially as we are billed twice for it! Once from the tap, then again for the sewer service. And, aside from this quibble, it works OK. I ***AM*** going to get this working right, I just have to determine exactly WHAT is failing. By process of elimination, it EVENTUALLY has to become clear. New theory is I have MULTIPLE problems. Maybe an intermittently bad relay and an intermittent solenoid valve, possibly with a bad connection thrown in, too. I've replaced the valves, again, and the relay, Waiting a few days to see if the trouble recurs. Jon |
| 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. |
No Response to "Digest for sci.electronics.repair@googlegroups.com - 18 updates in 3 topics"
Post a Comment