| Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com>: Feb 17 11:29AM -0600 Dave Platt wrote: > Thinking about it... I wonder whether those poor old transistors might > not just have been Plumb Tuckered Out? Yes, that is another possibility I considered. If the module had been in use for a long time, with no cooling, these are the highest power dissipation of all the signal transistors in the unit. Always on at 23 mA. I repaired an HP synthesizer that had about 400 Germanium transistors in it, and about a dozen had failed. I replaced them with Silicon transistors and then sold it on eBay before any more units went out. Jon |
| Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca>: Feb 17 02:31PM -0500 |
| Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net>: Feb 17 02:28PM -0500 On 02/17/2017 02:31 PM, Michael Black wrote: > handful of uses. So you can't easily get replacements, because few > germanium devices are made now. > Michael Point contact devices especially. 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 |
| "Benderthe.evilrobot" <Benderthe.evilrobot@virginmedia.com>: Feb 17 08:47PM "Jon Elson" <jmelson@wustl.edu> wrote in message news:1YadnWiqzNQ2jzvFnZ2dnUU7-R-dnZ2d@giganews.com... >> better. > This particular one was an NPN with an ft of 1400 MHz and 1.2 pF Cob. So, > definitely, a 2N2222 would not cut it. Once a neigbour broke the TO92 RF transistor in their wireless doorbell button. Nothing anywhere near in my junk box, so I salvaged the SMD RF transistor from a scrap mobile phone and put it on "stilts". It worked well enough, but it turns out a few other people along the street had the same doorbell on the same code setting................ |
| "Benderthe.evilrobot" <Benderthe.evilrobot@virginmedia.com>: Feb 17 08:49PM "Jon Elson" <jmelson@wustl.edu> wrote in message news:B46dnd2UOdMJpjvFnZ2dnUU7-cXNnZ2d@giganews.com... >> Dan > The part on the board was a Fairchild FMT1190. The part on the schematic > was an A430, which I can't even find a datasheet for. Was it PNP - could start with 2SA.... |
| "Benderthe.evilrobot" <Benderthe.evilrobot@virginmedia.com>: Feb 17 08:55PM "Phil Hobbs" <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote in message news:0OadnXHO3KuahDrFnZ2dnUU7-T2dnZ2d@supernews.com... > SMT prototyping is about a factor of 10 slower than dead bug using > through-hole parts. Every DIP package gets you a bunch of nice strong > standoffs. I regularly include SMD parts in dead-bug prototypes. With a bit of thought and planning they can reduce wire links instead of increasing them, they also tend toward adding rigidity to the assembly. |
| "Benderthe.evilrobot" <Benderthe.evilrobot@virginmedia.com>: Feb 17 09:01PM "Michael Black" <et472@ncf.ca> wrote in message news:alpine.LNX.2.02.1702171429360.15904@darkstar.example.org... > then at some point, silicon took over completely, except for a handful of > uses. So you can't easily get replacements, because few germanium devices > are made now. In the very early days, germanium transistors were epoxy potted - it wasn't very moisture proof. They've been much better since hermetically sealed metal cans. If you're used to silicon, the leakage on germanium devices is going to seem pretty dire anyway. |
| "Benderthe.evilrobot" <Benderthe.evilrobot@virginmedia.com>: Feb 17 09:03PM "Phil Hobbs" <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote in message news:kPmdnSfq3aVxizrFnZ2dnUU7-cGdnZ2d@supernews.com... >> Jon > A whole lot of TO92s went away in the last couple of years. I bought > several thousand as a lifetime prototyping supply. What I've harvested from scrap gear should last some time yet. |
| Stijn De Jong <stijndekonlng@nlnet.nl>: Feb 17 04:45PM On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 23:41:10 -0500, nospam wrote: > tl;dr - coverage varies. choose the carrier who has coverage in the > areas in which you travel and at a fair price. do not count on roaming. > there is no single 'best' for everyone. On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 20:13:54 -0800, Savageduck wrote: > T-Mobile does have much better rural coverage than AT&T, but nowhere as > good as I get with Verizon. I've had all three, Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile. Out here in the Silicon Valley, coverage seems about the same for each, although I had them in series, and not sequentially (except for a few concomitant burner phones). < off topic observation > I dropped Verizon when they added a two-year contract just for replacing a Kyocera phone that broke which I had under an insurance plan. That's where I learned the insurance plan had gotchas they don't tell you about; so the second that the additional two years were up, I went to AT&T (and saved a few bucks, as it turned out). I kept AT&T for about 4 or 5 years until I needed a plan sans data for my family plan. The Blackberry was grandfathered, but AT&T wouldn't allow me to have what they called a "smart phone" without data, even though they'd happily block data (saying it was for "my protection"). I dropped AT&T like a hot potatoe like I dropped Netflix when they changed their plan, and never looked back on either one. Moving to T-Mobile, I loved that they did everything differently. I mean everything. I could buy my own phone. No contract. No data overage charges ever. Calling Europe was 20 cents a minute. Data is unlimited in Europe. No roaming charges. And, I didn't have to have data if I didn't want it. I could get phones from them for an additional $50 over what I could get on the market, where they'd charge me 1/24th the phone on the bill. I didn't even have to tell them what phone I was using. Everything about T-Mobile was different than Verizon & AT&T. And the coverage was about the same (sucky in the mountains, great in the valley) for all three. < / off topic observation > |
| nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>: Feb 17 11:56AM -0500 In article <nkoind-hkg.ln1@minas-tirith.valinor>, Carlos E. R. > There is no way the phone can determine the location of the tower from > the signal, the antenna is non-directional. It has to be determined from > a map of locations. Maybe the tower gives that info, I don't know. they do. long ago, i used to put an old flip phone into service mode and see the lat/long of the towers as it handed off. |
| nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>: Feb 17 11:56AM -0500 In article <o879br$nht$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Stijn De Jong > Moving to T-Mobile, I loved that they did everything differently. I mean > everything. I could buy my own phone. No contract. No data overage charges > ever. you can buy your own phone with any carrier. until recently, the carriers would have preferred that since you would have been paying a subsidy for a phone they did not subsidize. that's more money for them. now that they've mostly separated the phone price and the plan price, they don't really care. sure, they'd love it if you bought it from them but if you bring your own that's fine too (as long as it's compatible with the network). > the market, where they'd charge me 1/24th the phone on the bill. I didn't > even have to tell them what phone I was using. Everything about T-Mobile > was different than Verizon & AT&T. you don't have to tell any carrier what phone you're using. they already know. |
| Stijn De Jong <stijndekonlng@nlnet.nl>: Feb 17 05:12PM On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 22:51:15 -0800, Savageduck wrote: > Paso Robles, California totally sucks. Conversely Verizon coverage is > actually quite good in the same area, particularly given that the only > towers in the area belong to Verizon. Coverage maps: https://opensignal.com/network-coverage-maps/ Dunno exactly where you are, so I have to just look at the lake itself. If I pick the area under the words "Lake Nacimiento" on the map as the point of reference, it seems that T-Mobile and Verizon are about the same, while AT&T and Sprint suck by way of comparison. AT&T: http://i.cubeupload.com/Mk740J.jpg Sprint: http://i.cubeupload.com/oYhuXd.jpg T-Mobile: http://i.cubeupload.com/i2SMJH.jpg Verizon: http://i.cubeupload.com/ReQily.jpg |
| Stijn De Jong <stijndekonlng@nlnet.nl>: Feb 17 05:14PM On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 06:58:46 -0000 (UTC), Lewis wrote: > house, so I have a (free) T-mobile CellSpot that provides LTE coverage > inside the house (and almost certainly improves the coverage for my > neighbors). T-Mobile calls *all* their home devices a "CellSpot", so which one do you have? I have two, for example, both of which are called CellSpot but they're quite different. What type do you have? How many decibels of cellular signal do you get from them? |
| Stijn De Jong <stijndekonlng@nlnet.nl>: Feb 17 05:26PM On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 22:45:01 -0800, Jeff Liebermann wrote: > Stolen from: > <http://people.csail.mit.edu/bkph/other/Cellular/osm_blog> > Read the footnotes, which have some Android bugs listed. Hi Jeff, I don't think it's that well defined in that there are two *different* supposedly unique types of cell ids that the apps list for GSM towers. There is a short CID and a long CID, which are completely different sets of numbers (i.e., one is not just a longer version of the other). Other than that confusion, the rest holds though, but my point is that there is no such thing as a CID since there are two types of CID both of which seem to be called CID but they're completely different numbers for the same cell tower. |
| Stijn De Jong <stijndekonlng@nlnet.nl>: Feb 17 05:26PM On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 09:25:27 +0100, Carlos E. R. wrote: > There is no way the phone can determine the location of the tower from > the signal, the antenna is non-directional. It has to be determined from > a map of locations. Maybe the tower gives that info, I don't know. That non-directional antenna explanation makes a ton of sense! Thank you for being one of the few scientifically sound people here! That explains my observation that the antenna location is not even close to the direction that OpenSignal points to. It's essentially fluff. That's pretty much the last straw on this silly OpenSignal app. The more I look at this lousy OpenSignal app, the less I like it. I had already put it as my last choice on Android since it was basically far less functional than every other choice, but I kept it on the list simply because it was the only tool I found that was also on iOS. So OpenSignal was my only 1:1 comparison with iOS. Like all the apps listed, OpenSignal was first written for Android, so you'd think that when they finally ported the app to iOS that it would work better. It turns out OpenSignal stinks on iOS even worse than it stinks on Android. If you're on iOS, you're stuck with it, but if you're on Android, my recommendation is to ditch OpenSignal in favor of Jeff's number one app (which is my #2 app becasuse I'm using teh freeware while Jeff is using the Pro version) and my number one or number two apps (as listed in the op). 01 Network Cell Info Lite, version 3.30: http://i.cubeupload.com/HoKTav.jpg http://wilysis.com/networkcellinfo https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.wilysis.cellinfolite 02 Network Signal Info, version 3.63.01: http://i.cubeupload.com/2zK8Ys.jpg https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=de.android.telnet If you want a log of the cell towers that your phone connected to, then the app to use is my number 4 app: 04 Netmonitor, version 1.2.15: http://i.cubeupload.com/TfDJaS.jpg https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.parizene.netmonitor You won't be able to get logging or cell tower identification from iOS unfortunately, so we should probably drop the iOS newsgroup from this discussion as it's not relevant to them. |
| Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>: Feb 17 09:50AM -0800 > Sprint: http://i.cubeupload.com/oYhuXd.jpg > T-Mobile: http://i.cubeupload.com/i2SMJH.jpg > Verizon: http://i.cubeupload.com/ReQily.jpg I am probably located just below the "C" of "Nacimiento". Those coverage maps pretty much detail my experience. I haven't been able to make the T-Mobile vs Verizon comparison as I have never used T-Mobile. AT&T has always been bad out here, as a result I have been with Verizon since the days when they were still GTE. -- Regards, Savageduck |
| Stijn De Jong <stijndekonlng@nlnet.nl>: Feb 17 06:17PM On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 09:50:36 -0800, Savageduck wrote: > have never used T-Mobile. > AT&T has always been bad out here, as a result I have been with Verizon > since the days when they were still GTE. The difference between ATT/Sprint and T-Mobile/Verizon was stark. I have good friends in a state where Verizon dominates and I helped them get two ways to *test* out T-Mobile coverage for free. One is that T-Mobile will actually lend you a phone for a period of time (a month? two weeks? I forget) where you can use the phone all you want to test out the coverage. The other is that T-Mobile will give you a SIM card (generally that costs a nominal one-time fee) for any tablet, which will have a 200MB/month plan, which I'm sure you're aware of. Either of those options should give you plenty of time to test out T-Mobile coverage, side to side with your current Verizon phone. And you won't even have to fake your own death to get off the Verizon contract! (jk) |
| nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>: Feb 17 01:35PM -0500 In article <o87eo6$12cr$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Stijn De Jong > > AT&T has always been bad out here, as a result I have been with Verizon > > since the days when they were still GTE. > The difference between ATT/Sprint and T-Mobile/Verizon was stark. that depends where. in major urban areas, there's no significant difference among any of the carriers, while in rural areas, one might be better than another, and which carrier that is will vary. even verizon has dead spots. all carriers do. > One is that T-Mobile will actually lend you a phone for a period of time (a > month? two weeks? I forget) where you can use the phone all you want to > test out the coverage. that's not unique to t-mobile. most providers (either direct or mvno) offer a 'test drive' where you sign up and can get a full refund (other than usage fees outside of your plan) within a week or two if you're not satisfied. in some cases, certain usage patterns indicates acceptance, even within the trial period. read the fine print. > The other is that T-Mobile will give you a SIM card (generally that costs a > nominal one-time fee) for any tablet, which will have a 200MB/month plan, > which I'm sure you're aware of. that doesn't do much good if there's no t-mobile coverage in the places where someone wants to use it. > Either of those options should give you plenty of time to test out T-Mobile > coverage, side to side with your current Verizon phone. the easiest way is pop in a t-mobile sim. or just ask people who actually use t-mobile in the same area. |
| JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca>: Feb 17 01:53PM -0500 On 2017-02-17 03:25, Carlos E. R. wrote: > There is no way the phone can determine the location of the tower from > the signal, the antenna is non-directional. It has to be determined from > a map of locations. Maybe the tower gives that info, I don't know. Cell antennas are very directional. A level at a tower rented by carrier will have a number of antennas each pointing different directions. Carriers spend oddles of time and sofphisticated software for propagation analysis to precisely orient antennas to maximise re-use of frequencies and maximize coverage. If you have 2 nearby towers, the beams aimed to cover the area betwene the 2 twoers will have different frequencies. But beams facing away from each other can use the same frequencies since they won't interfere with each other. While you would know the ID of the antenna/radio to which your phone connected, and the GPS location of tower that holds that antenna, you woudln't know the orientation of the antenna. Propagation delays might give you estimate of how far you are from antenna. But that would represent a circle all around antenna. If your phone can see signals from another antenna, then this may be able to narrow that circle to only the part that faces the other antenna. However, since modern phone have built-in GPS, they already know their location. |
| "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@invalid.es>: Feb 17 08:16PM +0100 On 2017-02-17 19:53, JF Mezei wrote: >> the signal, the antenna is non-directional. It has to be determined from >> a map of locations. Maybe the tower gives that info, I don't know. > Cell antennas are very directional. I know. We installed them at a small company I worked with. But the antenna on the mobile phone is not. The mobile can not know the direction of the signal from the signal alone, that's what I said. -- Cheers, Carlos E.R. |
| sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>: Feb 17 11:35AM -0800 On 2/17/2017 8:45 AM, Stijn De Jong wrote: > Out here in the Silicon Valley, coverage seems about the same for each, > although I had them in series, and not sequentially (except for a few > concomitant burner phones). OMG. No way. Verizon is far superior in Silicon Valley and the Bay Area. T-Mobile is useless outside the urban and suburban core, and their rural coverage is far inferior to AT&T or Verizon, and it's gotten worse as they've dropped roaming onto AT&T in the surrounding areas. If you want coverage up in the surrounding hills and mountains of Silicon Valley you need Verizon. I currently have AT&T, having migrated from Verizon, and the difference is stark. I have an iPad on Verizon, provided to me, and Verizon was chosen because it's the only carrier that works in the civic center area of Cupertino. One day I had to make a call from there and I couldn't use my AT&T phone so I used Hangouts on the iPad and used Google Voice. Looks pretty ridiculous using an iPad Air as a phone, but it worked. In San Francisco, my sister-in-law works at a major hospital close to the Castro, and only Verizon works inside. Once you leave the Bay Area and travel out toward the center of the state, and gold country and the Sierras, T-Mobile is essentially unusable. They don't even try to duplicate the coverage of AT&T, let alone Verizon. Verizon bought out Golden State Cellular which did a very good job of covering rural areas. Try driving over 152 out to I-5. You lose T-Mobile coverage just about the time you can no longer smell the garlic in Gilroy and head up over Pacheco pass. Then on I-5 south, T-Mobile coverage is very spotty. We go on that route several times a year since a child-unit is in college in San Diego. We had T-Mobile briefly in 2015 because we were in Europe and I wanted the included SMS, low speed data, and 20¢/minute voice, and I cancelled it about a month after we got back because it was so horrible. |
| nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>: Feb 17 02:44PM -0500 In article <o87jb6$hnn$1@dont-email.me>, sms > > although I had them in series, and not sequentially (except for a few > > concomitant burner phones). > OMG. No way. Verizon is far superior in Silicon Valley and the Bay Area. they're all about the same. > T-Mobile is useless outside the urban and suburban core, and their rural > coverage is far inferior to AT&T or Verizon, and it's gotten worse as > they've dropped roaming onto AT&T in the surrounding areas. t-mobile's coverage is steadily getting *better*, not worse. > In San Francisco, my sister-in-law works at a major hospital close to > the Castro, and only Verizon works inside. that has more to do with the frequencies used than the carrier. |
| "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net>: Feb 17 12:56PM -0500 Michael Black wrote: >> > didn't plug in, you could use it where other irons might not be safe. >> Wahl made, and still makes them. > Thanks. I suddenly couldn't remember who made it. You're welcome. :) -- Never piss off an Engineer! They don't get mad. They don't get even. They go for over unity! ;-) |
| 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 - 25 updates in 4 topics"
Post a Comment