sci.electronics.repair@googlegroups.com

Google Groups

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net>: Mar 25 01:52PM -0400 > better service back in the days before 2010? And why is maintaining a > pay phone so difficult? It could have prevented a major fire, and could > even save a life. STUPID STUPID....     Yes, you are. Pay phones started dying, when cell phones became popular. They started to disappear, as they no longer took in enough money to pay for the equipment, the line and the labor to service them. They finally reached the point where the equipment was worn out, and too expense to maintain. Payphone companies started to disappear, in the mid '90s. I hauled off trailer loads of aluminum phone booths from one company when they downsized to a smaller building. A year later, they were bankrupt. That was in 1995.   As far as cell phone towers, a lot of the cost is in legal fees and local governments charging out the ass for permits. So it becomes greed, over safety.     -- Never piss off an Engineer!   They don't get mad.   They don't get even.   They go for over unity! ;-)

Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>: Mar 25 12:46PM -0700 On Sat, 25 Mar 2017 13:52:57 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"   >As far as cell phone towers, a lot of the cost is in legal fees and >local governments charging out the ass for permits. So it becomes greed, >over safety.   Not so much legal fees. The local cellular operators tend to hire real estate brokers and such to deal with the local governments. They're less expensive than lawyers and are more knowledgeable about local alternative sites, site rental fees, and property costs. Intentional delays that bordered on extortion became such a problem that the FCC was forced to require a time limit for acting on proposed sites new site and modifications. <http://www.commlawblog.com/2012/01/articles/cellular/fcc-shot-clock-presumptions-for-wireless-tower-permitting-upheld/> <https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-99A1.pdf>   It's not just municipal governments that slow things down. Local citizens groups that fear the proliferation of RF belching towers also create delays. For example, this is our local citizens groups: <https://www.facebook.com/StopBoulderCreekCellTower/> The Boulder Creek site was never built, but no because of the efforts of this group. It was due to the county demanding specific basic documents from the Verizon representative, which were not produced.   I has several discussions with the Verizon people about this site and others that were planned locally, which taught me a few things. For example, at the time, Verizon had about 1500 new sites in various stages of planning in Northern California. Most of these sites are not for new coverage, but are to increase bandwidth and capacity in areas that already have service. New sites require some minimum prospective user density to be considered worthwhile, which is a problem for areas with transient usage. For example, a rather large lake in the area has nearly zero cellular coverage, despite a large influx of cell phone users during the summer. Because the area is essentially empty during the remaining 9 months of the year, it's probably not going to be profitable investment.   Verizon also takes the path of least resistance. If there's any impediments caused by government or citizen groups and can't seem to be resolved, Verizon just moves on to another more hospitable area. The previously mentioned lake owners/operators offered to pay Verizon for installing a site to compensate for the limited revenue. I don't know if that worked.   Another expensive problem is camouflaged towers, which roughly doubles the cost of the tower. Yet another is the time involved in crafting local tower ordinances, no two of which are identical. I was involved in the passage of the Santa Cruz CA county tower ordinance, which in my never humble opinion was a giant mess. You really don't want to know what is involved in making sausage and tower ordinances. Incidentally, we were saved by the local coastal commission. They took our best efforts, cleaned it up dramatically, and actually produced a readable and workable ordinance. Other cities and counties often use the time needed to create such ordinance as a way of delaying the introduction of new towers.   If you want to slosh through the politics, reading back issues of AGL (Above Ground Level) magazine should be instructive: <http://www.aglmediagroup.com>   I can go on forever on tower politics, but I'm already late for a lunch time meeting.       -- 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

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net>: Mar 25 04:12PM -0400 Carlos E. R. wrote:   > I'm not a Windows lover, my system of choice is Linux. However, I find > Windows 10 quite good, considering, once customized. I prefer Windows > 7, but 10 is safer.   I have a couple tablets. My favorite is a 10" Irulu with an octacore processor. I have a case for it with a real keyboard, but it spends a lot of time on a stand, on top of my SFF dell computer. I can see the 24" monitor behind it as I stream the news, or another program while using the computer.   IRULU X1 Pro 10.1" Android 4.4 Tablet Octa Core 16GB/1GB HDMI 1024*600 /Keyboard and it was $106, delivered.   I have a pair of Kocaso MX780 7" tablets that I bought for $100. I carry one to appointments at the VA hospital, since I have about for hours to kill between the DAV shuttle runs. I have a 32 GB micro SD card with thousands of old books to read, and the Android app for Magic Jack to make calls when there is a free hotspot. The twin is a spare, in case the other is lost or damaged.   -- Never piss off an Engineer!   They don't get mad.   They don't get even.   They go for over unity! ;-)

"Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid>: Mar 25 10:18PM +0100 On 2017-03-25 18:52, Michael A. Terrell wrote: > '90s. I hauled off trailer loads of aluminum phone booths from one > company when they downsized to a smaller building. A year later, they > were bankrupt. That was in 1995.   Depends on which country you are. In mine, there was a mandate by which each village must have at least one payphone, specially on small villages that do not have a phone per house. That is, if the company can not set a phone at each house that wants one, they must at least install one payphone (or more, depending on the population).   I don't know if that mandate is still valid.   As for mobile, I think there is another mandate that the dominant provider must provide service on every village. But I'm unsure.   -- Cheers, Carlos E.R.

Ralph Mowery <rmowery28146@earthlink.net>: Mar 25 05:54PM -0400 In article <dsgddc506qf6ml83bnli60k7o07u1405qg@4ax.com>, jeffl@cruzio.com says... > produced a readable and workable ordinance. Other cities and counties > often use the time needed to create such ordinance as a way of > delaying the introduction of new towers.   Riding down the interstate today and saw a cell tower made to look like a tree. It seemed to be about 100 feet or more tall. The top 1/3 or so had some fake tree things on it to look like a pine tree. Real funny looking as it was about 50 feet or more taller than any trees around it.   It would have been less noticable if it had just the cell antennas on it instead of the fake tree top.

Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>: Mar 25 09:46PM -0700 On Sat, 25 Mar 2017 17:54:20 -0400, Ralph Mowery >looking as it was about 50 feet or more taller than any trees around it.   >It would have been less noticable if it had just the cell antennas on it >instead of the fake tree top.   This is what AT&T (Cingular) installed when they were first forced to disguise a cell tower or monopole and had no clue what they were doing but had to build it in a hurry: <http://www.LearnByDestroying.com/jeffl/crud/AmestiAT&T.jpg> I'll spare you the jokes about standing lumber trees.   People drove for considerable distances to see this abomination when it was first installed about 20(?) years ago. Incidentally, it's 90ft high. There was some official debate over the distinction between a genuine disguise monopine and an attractive nuisance. This created an awkward situation for AT&T, where modifying or rebuilding the tower might be construed as agreeing with their critics. So, it was left unchanged for a few years until the bad jokes died down. A water tank now sits on the location and a new cell site was built somewhere close, but further away from the nearby residential areas.   For additional disguise cell towers and associated stories, see: <http://www.celltowerphotos.com>   Then, there's the giant cucumber tower: <http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/Giant-Cucumber.jpg>   Anything worth doing, is also worth over-doing: <http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/Cell_Site_Mast_Loaded.jpg>     -- 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

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net>: Mar 26 01:14AM -0400 Jeff Liebermann wrote:   > If you want to slosh through the politics, reading back issues of AGL > (Above Ground Level) magazine should be instructive: > <http://www.aglmediagroup.com>     I worked in CATV, Broadcast and Two way radios. The City of Middletown Ohio's first tower ordinance banned ALL towers, and outdoor antennas. No exemption for the local AM radio station, CATV headend, or even the police and fire departments. Their faulty reasoning was if no one had an antenna, everyone would have to pay for cable, and they would make more money off the franchise fees which were based on the number of customers.   In the early '80s St. Louis, MO sent our CATV manager an order to take down their tower and Sat dishes, for the same fool idea. St Lois was a real mess. They split the city into seven areas, and gave seven different companies a franchise. They also wanted to make cable customers pay a large fee to pay for the entire costs to operate the landfill, and all garbage collection, since watching TV was a 'luxury'.       -- Never piss off an Engineer!   They don't get mad.   They don't get even.   They go for over unity! ;-)

Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>: Mar 25 11:09PM -0700 On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 01:14:13 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell" >different companies a franchise. They also wanted to make cable >customers pay a large fee to pay for the entire costs to operate the >landfill, and all garbage collection, since watching TV was a 'luxury'.   We do things a little differently on the left coast. The county cell tower ordinance was inspired by the local drug dealers in about 2000. We have a rather large local amusement park. Nearby is a residential slum and ghetto. In the middle of this area, on top of a small hill, is a two story dilapidated building with a small market downstairs. It's also the exchange point for most of the local drug deals.   Two of the cellular providers decided that if they purged and disinfected the rooms above the market, it would make a good location for cell sites. They then applied to the city (not county). This information was eventually passed to the various drug dealers, who somehow (correctly) deduced that a cell site located in the middle of their stomping grounds could be used to accurately track their movements around the area. So, they organized a protest movement, which turned the first public hearing into a circus.   At this point, someone in city government decided that such things as tower ordinances was really the job of the county. Characteristically interested in more powers, the country agreed and decided to write the tower ordinance. A temporary summer intern was hired by the planning department to research and cut-n-paste an ordinance together out of pieces he found on the internet from multiple sources. At the end of summer he returned to his studies, leaving the county with an inconsistent and incoherent mess.   The only problem was that they didn't know that it was a mess until after the squabbling began. Every possible organization with an interest in cellular, towers, land use, aesthetics, historical preservation, electro biological effects of RF, and alien visitations became involved. The original drug dealers probably attended the initial planning department hearings, but were lost in the ever expanding circus atmosphere.   Unfortunately, I was volunteered to represent the interests of the local ham radio operators. Just one problem. I had recently survived some major surgery and still felt rather lousy. Sitting for hours in a crowded meeting room and lecturing morons on basic RF concepts did not seem very appealing.   After the first circus meeting, things settled down to business during the second meeting. Every group cut up its piece of the ordinance for special attention. Speakers of all types and abilities presented their case before the planning department board. There were the usual comedies, such as one lady who after denouncing cell phones as a health hazard, had her own cell phone ring while she was at the podium. Several speakers presented seriously erroneous technical information about RF. However, the real problem came from one of the planning department members, who decided to add cell site density and exposure limitations to the ordinance. Since nobody was interested, I decided that it was up to me to deal with the problem.   When my turn at the podium came, I presented the board with a simplified explanation about the relationship between transmit power, data bandwidth, and range. Any two can be traded for the third. If cellular radio was going to progress, it would need to increase the data bandwidth. Power was not going up because the batteries in the handsets would die too quickly. The obvious answer was more cell sites and denser concentrations of cell sites. Otherwise, the county was going to be locked into the technical backwaters of 2000. (It was also illegal for the county to pass such a technical requirement as that is the domain of the FCC, but I let county council tell them that). The density and exposure clauses were quietly dropped.   I was sitting next to someone who obviously was an attorney. We talked a little and I discovered he was there to represent AT&T. When I asked why he said nothing during the hearings, he answered that the important points would be settled after the ordinance is passed through the usual exemptions and amendments. He was right.   Several meetings later, an ordinance was hammered out that was sufficient to present to the board of supervisors. They did not want yet another public circus, so they rubber stamped it on the consent agenda. Nobody complained.   The next step was to pass it to the Coastal Commission, who's approval was required because many of the cell sites were within the coastal zone. What we got back was something that resembled bloodshed. There were so many red marks, corrections, changes, and re-writes on the various pages, that I barely recognized the ordinance. The Coastal Commission had passed it on to what I believe was someone with considerable experience in writing ordinances, who cleaned it up. I was impressed. The planning board and board of supervisors were less impressed, but accepted it anyway.   <http://www.codepublishing.com/CA/SantaCruzCounty/html/SantaCruzCounty13/SantaCruzCounty1310.html> 13.10.660 thru 13.10.668.   In the last 17 years, the ordinance has roughly doubled in size. Exemptions and exceptions are added regularly to deal with non-compliant technology and organizations. Life blunders on.   If adding a cell site in your neighborhood requires a tower ordinance, you have my sympathies.   -- 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

nmassello@yahoo.com (Neill Massello): Mar 26 03:06AM -0600 > Then, there's the giant cucumber tower: > <http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/Giant-Cucumber.jpg>   We've got something like that here, looming over a small strip mall parking lot, but it looks more like a giant furry green corn dog.   > Anything worth doing, is also worth over-doing: > <http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/Cell_Site_Mast_Loaded.jpg>   The Watts Towers of telecom. To me, that's actually more esthetically pleasing than most of the attempts to disguise.

Foxs Mercantile <jdangus@att.net>: Mar 26 04:20AM -0500 On 3/26/2017 4:06 AM, Neill Massello wrote: >> <http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/Cell_Site_Mast_Loaded.jpg>   > The Watts Towers of telecom. To me, that's actually more > aesthetically pleasing than most of the attempts to disguise.   Back in the early to mid '90s, the standard albeit incorrect answer for "no cell phone use on airplanes" was that they would interfere with the operation of the airplane.   My question was, if that was true, why wasn't Mount Wilson a smoking crater for the amount of RF it poured out under the flight path.       -- Jeff-1.0 wa6fwi http://www.foxsmercantile.com   --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com

Pat <pat@nospam.us>: Mar 26 06:43AM -0400 On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 04:20:13 -0500, Foxs Mercantile <jdangus@att.net> wrote:     >My question was, if that was true, why wasn't Mount Wilson a >smoking crater for the amount of RF it poured out under the >flight path.   First of all, they didn't say cell phones *would* interfere. They said they *Could* interfere. The transmitters on Mt Wilson are maintained by professionals. If one of those transmitters would suddenly start transmitting on an ATC or navaid frequency, they would figure it out and fix it quickly. Compare that to a few hundred people on an airliner each with their own little transmitter. If one of those devices malfunctions and is spewing harmonics, there is no quick way to find and resolve it. So, asking everyone to turn off their transmitters reduces the chances of an interference problem. Of course, some will forget and others refuse, but having 2 or 3 small transmitters on a plane rather than hundreds reduces the chances of an issue. You said "if that was true". Not only *was* it true back in the mid 90's. It *is* still true today. And, why do you want your phone wasting battery searching for usable cell sites during a long flight, anyway?

MJC <gravity@mjcoon.plus.com>: Mar 26 11:55AM +0100 In article <1n3h49j.1pfusa2r19m5dN%nmassello@yahoo.com>, nmassello@yahoo.com says... > > <http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/Cell_Site_Mast_Loaded.jpg>   > The Watts Towers of telecom. To me, that's actually more esthetically > pleasing than most of the attempts to disguise.   Hmmm. Looks like an overgrown cross between two percussion instruments: vibro-slap and tamborine (can't remember what the official one is called)...   Mike.

MJC <gravity@mjcoon.plus.com>: Mar 26 11:58AM +0100 In article <ob814l$1p8f$1@gioia.aioe.org>, jdangus@att.net says...   > My question was, if that was true, why wasn't Mount Wilson a > smoking crater for the amount of RF it poured out under the > flight path.   At least while fuselages were still made of metal, it should be more resistant to RF (and lightning) from outside than inside...   Mike.

Ralph Mowery <rmowery28146@earthlink.net>: Mar 26 10:57AM -0400 In article <aneedcl6qd917r9mf9m7slo6d5nanrajsn@4ax.com>, jeffl@cruzio.com says... > <http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/Giant-Cucumber.jpg>   > Anything worth doing, is also worth over-doing: > <http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/Cell_Site_Mast_Loaded.jpg>   Just off the interstate in South Carolina where everyone can see it is a water tower made to look like a peach.   When it was in its orange primer it looked like a giant butt sticking up. Even after the peach color was added it still looks like a butt.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peachoid

Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>: Mar 26 09:02AM -0700 On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 04:20:13 -0500, Foxs Mercantile <jdangus@att.net> wrote:     >Back in the early to mid '90s, the standard albeit incorrect >answer for "no cell phone use on airplanes" was that they would >interfere with the operation of the airplane.   Cell phones in airplanes don't work very well because the phone can see perhaps hundreds of cell sites simultaneously from the air causing handoff problems: <http://www.911myths.com/html/mobiles_at_altitude.html> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phones_on_aircraft> >My question was, if that was true, why wasn't Mount Wilson a >smoking crater for the amount of RF it poured out under the >flight path.   Patience. Your crater might arrive eventually. An LAX ATC tried by aiming a Boeing 777 Dreamliner at Mt Wilson in order to produce the required crater: <http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-faa-investigation-plane-wrong-direction-20161220-story.html> <http://www.jacdec.de/2016/12/20/2016-12-16-eva-air-b777-flew-astray-and-close-to-terrain-east-of-los-angeles/> Since that failed, it might be possible to attempt to burn it down again, once the trees and brush grow back: <http://www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/Mt.-Wilson-with-labeled-names-of-scopes.jpg>   The bottom line is that cell phone interference is unlikely, but still too much of a potential problem to risk a disaster. Better safe than sorry. Besides, I don't want to fly in an airplane full of people trying to yell over the engine noise into their cell phones.   -- 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

bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net>: Mar 25 12:42PM -0400 On 03/23/2017 04:36 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote: >>> <http://www.ebay.com/itm/231849537436>   >> Wow, that's a good price.   > Yep. I can't even ship an empty box for that price.   Thanks again for the tip, Jeff, the replacement adapter came today and is charging the laptop and seems to be working great. :-)

bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net>: Mar 26 01:50AM -0400 On 03/18/2017 04:06 PM, bitrex wrote:   > Before I run out and make sure to pick up an OEM supply, is there any > way to ensure this is certainly a problem with the adapter and not the PC?   > Maybe a BIOS update is required?   So here's the final solution. The new power adapter powered the laptop consistently, however it only charged the battery once. Then it refused to charge again.   Updating the BIOS to the latest version fixed that problem as well, so now everything is working fine. I had to use the "hack" method though, as of course I didn't realize there was a problem remaining until the battery had fully discharged, and the Windows update tool requires the battery to be above 10% to operate, as "ohger1" mentioned.   For future reference, you get Dell Diagnostic Deployment Package (DDDP) here:   <https://www.dell.com/support/article/us/en/19/SLN143196/how-to-create-a-bootable-usb-flash-drive-using-dell-diagnostic-deployment-package--dddp-?lang=EN>   and also the latest BIOS update executable. Follow the instructions to make a bootable USB flash drive with the proper DOS startup files.   Hit F12 on startup and switch the boot mode from "UEFI" to "Legacy." Restart and select the USB flash drive to boot from and a DOS prompt like "Diag C:\>" should come up.   The BIOS update file will show up with the usual "~1" at the end to represent an extended filename. On mine it was "INSPIR~1.EXE". Type "INSPIR~1.EXE /forceit" (hidden option) to force a BIOS update while on AC power with a dead battery.   After the BIOS is flashed shut down the computer, remove the battery and hold down the power switch for about 20 seconds. Reboot, switch the boot mode back to "UEFI" and boot into Windows and the charging light should come on indicating the battery is charging properly. Yay!

N_Cook <diverse@tcp.co.uk>: Mar 25 06:55PM On 24/03/2017 15:30, N_Cook wrote: > while first solder dab. > Any devices a definite no-no for high local magnetism? , presumably some > SMD termination metal is not ferrous for one thing.   While at it, any problems with fine chip geometries in cameras, fancy phones and computers, passing through airport X-ray scanners?

"pfjw@aol.com" <pfjw@aol.com>: Mar 25 12:29PM -0700 I have been through many scanners all over the US, and the world. No issues, ever. Traveling with everything from high end cameras to sensitive medical equipment.   Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA

"pfjw@aol.com" <pfjw@aol.com>: Mar 25 11:48AM -0700 I am looking for a clean copy of the original assembly manual for a Scott LK150. The unit I have was assembled with Kynar wire, I would like a do-over. Thanks in advance.   Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA

avagadro7@gmail.com: Mar 25 10:46AM -0700 > > is there a common response in qualifying specs to the naming of BANDIT BLASTER KILLER AMP DOA SONIC GUN et al .....   > > is this quality ? quality what ? R&R Hard Rock Virgil Fox ? I'd guess that is the intended market but does that work or is the naming just a ploy for cheap outputs   > goo.gl/z03QKX   LOCAL NOISE sez naming here is aimed at a specific age and cultural group ... we can live with this...but what does the oscilloscope say ?

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.