sci.electronics.repair@googlegroups.com

Google Groups

rbowman <bowman@montana.com>: Jul 22 11:38AM -0600 On 07/22/2017 07:22 AM, rickman wrote:   > There is a 10 mile stretch with only one traffic light and a posted > speed limit of 45 MPH. If I can get up to 50 so I'm solid in fifth gear > my mileage rocks.   I should look at the instantaneous readouts versus mph to see if the mpg falls off gradually or if there is an efficiency sweet spot around 65-70. Except for around the cities the interstate speed limit in this and some of the adjoining states is 80. Drive 65 at your own risk.

Ed Pawlowski <esp@snet.net>: Jul 22 01:52PM -0400 On 7/22/2017 1:38 PM, rbowman wrote:   > falls off gradually or if there is an efficiency sweet spot around > 65-70. Except for around the cities the interstate speed limit in this > and some of the adjoining states is 80. Drive 65 at your own risk.   I tried that one day on a flat stretch so there would be little variance. This was on my regular trip to work. Speed limit is 65. One day I did 70, the next 65, then at 60 is was dicey, the next day I tried 55 for about 30 seconds and decided not to risk my life.   I forget the details, but 60 was better than 70 by a couple of mpg. Problem is, I prefer driving 75. If I could get away with it I'd go 85+ but don't want to pay the fines.

Mad Roger <rogermadd@yahoo.com>: Jul 22 11:42PM On Sat, 22 Jul 2017 00:46:50 -0400, rickman wrote:   > So my odometer is accurate and precise.   I understand you because you're exactly the type of person that I had in mind when I asked the question in the first place.   > on the highway as well as against my GPS (I think the highway markers are > more accurate than the GPS). It is spot on with the current tires to 1% or > better.   Does your tripmeter have a decimal place and digits after that decimal place?   > My speedometer is mechanical and so has a separate calibration factor.   The speedometer example was only brought in to point out that the vain hope that averages result in better "accuracy" is patently false.   Mom-and-pop type of people actually believe that a speedometer reads even close to accurately - and worse - some here propose the vain notion that the more readings they take, somehow (magically?) the more accurate the results will be.   A speedometer that reads high isn't going to result in more accurate calculations even if you do a billion test runs.   >> + A pumpmeter of 20.25 gallons is likely relatively accurate & precise   > Of course it is. States inspect them at some point.   You don't seem to understand what accuracy and precision even mean. Haven't you taken even one science lab course? >> + Matching fuel level in the tank isn't even close to accurate nor precise   > I don't agree. I let the pump click off and then continue to pump for a > number of more clicks until it cuts off immediately.   I'm not at all surprised about your concept of the fuel-level estimation, and, in fact, you're exactly the mom-and-pop type person I was talking about when I opened the thread.   I understand you.   > at least another fifteen miles before I am home so that is better part of a > gallon burned so I don't need to worry about the gas warming up and running > out of the tank. I believe this makes for very consistent fill ups.   I'm sure you do believe that.   > My MPG results pretty well show the consistency of my measures.   I'm sure your MPG results support any theory you want them to support. I believe you.   > You know what happens when you assume... ;)   You don't know how funny that statement was to me when I just read it now.   > I see less than 19 or even 19.5 MPG.   I bet you see that decimal place even though it's not in the tripmeter estimation nor in the filllevel estimation.   You see, I understand you because you're the type of person I had in mind when I asked the question.   > I think the consistency of my MPG readings show how well each of these can > be measured.   I'm sure you do.   > As you say, the pump is going to be dead on.   Whoa! I never said the pump was "dead on" and anyone reading this thread who thinks I think the pump is "dead on" would have completely misunderstood everything else I said.   All I said was that the inaccuracies and imprecisions in the pump reading are likely better than the otherwise astoundingly huge imprecision in the fuel-fill level estimation and in the lesser inaccuracy of the tripmeter estimation.   > Other than scale > error which can be calibrated out the odometer will be very good.   Define "very good" please.   > Filling your tank can be good as well.   I'm sure you believe that filling the tank is "accurate" since you calculate 19.5 miles per gallon and not something like 19.5 rounded up to 20 and then the error taken into account such that it's more likely anywhere between 19 and 21 mpg than it is 19.5 mpg.   > It's not like they design gas tanks to have air pockets.   Actually, they do have air pockets. Those air pockets change in size based on temperature & pressure & fill level.   Even the fuel changes in density based on those parameters. > You don't need to know any of this specifically.   Of course I don't. 19.5 mpg is all I need to know. And if I change "something" which results in 19.7mpg, then of course, that something was the cause. I understand. I really do.   > Why do you care which of the three has what specific degrees of accuracy and > precision?   I care because when I do a calculation, my assumption is that 19.5mpg is actually something closer to 19 to 21 mpg than it is to 19.5.   If the "change" I'm measuring is within that margin of error, then I can't say anything about what that "change" was.   And, more importantly, neither can you. Which is the entire point after all.

dpb <none@non.net>: Jul 22 07:44PM -0500 On 07/21/2017 8:30 PM, dpb wrote: >> W&M departments use for their tolerance. A NIST document of 20,000 >> tested meters showed 0-mean normally distributed discrepancies at about >> 90% bounds on the +/-6 number. The 6/5gal --> ~0.5%   ...   > symmetric and zero-mean, but the tail in each direction dropped off more > as hyperbolic than a normal--hence the tail percentages would actually > by somewhat lower than a real normal of same mean, standard deviation.     I got curious myself on what the numbers revealed and looked at the NIST numbers again.   I computed an empirical cdf and compared it to normal...statistics from the 20,036 observations are below:   >> [h,s]=cdfplot(x); >> s s = min: -50 max: 146 mean: -0.0788 std: 3.7681 median: 0 mode: 0   I then compared to normal on the same plot and as outlined above N(mean,std) is too long-tailed on both ends in comparison. It turns out that N(mean,std/1.5) is pretty close on both tails to about the +/- 6 point.     Anyway, from the above it's simple enough to get some pretty good estimates of what pump volume errors one might expect...the table below is from the empirical cdf NIST data...   P error(in^3)/5Gal error(%) 0.001 -22 -1.82 0.005 -9 -0.78 0.010 -8 -0.69 0.025 -6 -0.52 0.050 -5 -0.43 0.250 -2 -0.17 0.500 0 0 0.750 2 0.17 0.900 4 0.34 0.950 5 0.43 0.975 6 0.52 0.990 7 0.60 0.995 10 0.86 0.999 22 1.82   From the above, one can conclude the pump metering error small for all except the extreme outlier pumps.   --

clare@snyder.on.ca: Jul 22 09:10PM -0400 On Sat, 22 Jul 2017 23:42:25 -0000 (UTC), Mad Roger >say anything about what that "change" was.   >And, more importantly, neither can you. >Which is the entire point after all. The man is right You are wrong. You ASS U ME too much - and at the risk of insulting the few GOOD engineers on the list, you OBVIOUISLY are an "engineer", but not one I'd hire for a job. The job would come in WAY over budget, WAY late, and would need to be completely redone by techitians and technologists at great cost, or to save time and money, completely decommissioned and scrapped - starting over with someone who knew what thet were doing, and how to do it - engineer or not.

clare@snyder.on.ca: Jul 22 09:14PM -0400 a whole lot of crap snipped >say anything about what that "change" was.   >And, more importantly, neither can you. >Which is the entire point after all. Roger, me lad - you wouldn't happen to be a britiah trained engineer, now, would you?? In what discipline of engineering?

Mad Roger <rogermadd@yahoo.com>: Jul 23 02:40AM On Sat, 22 Jul 2017 19:44:26 -0500, dpb wrote:   > 0.999 22 1.82   > From the above, one can conclude the pump metering error small for all > except the extreme outlier pumps.   I love that you are the only one quoting actual numbers and not pulling them out of your butt to answer the question!   But your numbers confuse me because they seem to be in cubic inches. You also mentioned that metric pumps are more accurate, but that's impossible, simply because the pump is as accurate as the pump can get, which, we can assume, is a mechanical thing (and not a metric thing).   All you're saying is that a liter is four times smaller than a gallon so the error is four times less for a given liter versus a given gallon but that's not saying it's more accurate. It's just saying the volume is less so the resulting error is less.   Anyways, can you just summarize what the error is for a typical USA pump in gallons?   For a typical 20-gallon fill, how many gallons off can reality be, plus or minus from the indicated reading on the pumpmeter?

ABLE1 <someone@nowhere.net>: Jul 22 03:32PM -0400 On 7/14/2017 8:45 PM, ABLE1 wrote:   > Thanks for any hints or tip on this matter.   > Have a good day.   > Les   Ok, Update and another question.   I removed all the leaking caps plus the others of the same type and size that had not shown signs of leakage just to be thorough.   I then cleaned the board with some mild detergent, rinsed off and placed in my pre-heated oven at 220F and then turned off.   Let set in the oven for about 2 hours while it cooled. Pulled the board out and it looks good.   So far so good. It is now time to install the new caps.   And then it hit me.   This is a double sided board. I am concerned that the component side of the board that is under the capacitor will not be soldered properly to the leads.   Is there some trick that needs to be applied somehow to get this soldered properly??   Again thanks for any thoughts or suggestions.   Les

Ralph Mowery <rmowery28146@earthlink.net>: Jul 22 04:30PM -0400 In article <XKNcB.239890$OD2.164460@fx44.iad>, someone@nowhere.net says... > properly to the leads.   > Is there some trick that needs to be applied somehow to get this > soldered properly??   Hopefully the holes are waht they call 'plated through' where there is a path through the hole to the other side that is conductive. Just use plenty of solder and heat and it should wick to the other side.

ABLE1 <someone@nowhere.net>: Jul 22 06:42PM -0400 On 7/22/2017 4:30 PM, Ralph Mowery wrote:   > Hopefully the holes are what they call 'plated through' where there is a > path through the hole to the other side that is conductive. Just use > plenty of solder and heat and it should wick to the other side.   Thanks Ralph,   That was the key point I was missing. I metered each side of the board on one hole, and yes, I got continuity.   Excellent!! Sooooooooo "Piece of cake".   Thanks again.   Les

tabbypurr@gmail.com: Jul 22 05:54PM -0700 On Saturday, 22 July 2017 23:42:16 UTC+1, ABLE1 wrote:   > Excellent!! Sooooooooo "Piece of cake".   > Thanks again.   > Les   If it's a piece of cake you'll need to handle it quite carefully when soldering :) If electronics ever becomes edible that would solve the disposal issue.     NT

ABLE1 <someone@nowhere.net>: Jul 22 09:05PM -0400 > If it's a piece of cake you'll need to handle it quite carefully when soldering :) > If electronics ever becomes edible that would solve the disposal issue.   > NT   Funny........................

Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com>: Jul 22 06:33PM -0700 ABLE1 wrote:   ------------------     > Ok, Update and another question.   > I removed all the leaking caps plus the others of the same type > and size that had not shown signs of leakage just to be thorough.   ** FFS stop using the term "leakage" wrongly.   In electronics, "leakage" refers to current passing through an imperfect insulator.   What you have is caps *leaking electrolyte*.           > This is a double sided board. I am concerned that the component > side of the board that is under the capacitor will not be soldered > properly to the leads.   ** That makes no sense.   You can see the component side and solder to it.   The reverse side may be a problem to get at, but nearly all PCBs have plated through holes that you can solder from EITHER side.     ..... Phil

ABLE1 <someone@nowhere.net>: Jul 22 10:32PM -0400 On 7/22/2017 9:33 PM, Phil Allison wrote:   > You can see the component side and solder to it.   > The reverse side may be a problem to get at, but nearly all PCBs have plated through holes that you can solder from EITHER side.   > ..... Phil   Thanks Phil,   Mental note made.   Les

Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com>: Jul 22 06:24PM -0700 amdx wrote:   --------------------     > I can't find a schematic for my model. > The closest I have found is this. > > http://www.czhfmtransmitter.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Fmuser-CZH-CZE-05BcirciutDiagram.pdf     ** Wow - no part numbers or component values. How uninformative.     .... Phil

micky <NONONOmisc07@bigfoot.com>: Jul 22 04:31PM -0400 Is my 2004 original equipment CD player likely to be able to play Mp3 cds (in the car I just bought)?   There is one I want to buy (though I dont' have the url now) that had far more songs on it, maybe 50 or 100, than the 15 that I'm used to, and another poster made me realize that this might be a set of MP3 files.   The owners manual says nothing about mp3. That probably means no, right?

dplatt@coop.radagast.org (Dave Platt): Jul 22 01:45PM -0700 >The owners manual says nothing about mp3. That probably means no, >right?   It almost certainly means "no" although you might get lucky.   Ordinary Red Book audio CDs can hold up to 99 tracks. It's _possible_ that the CD you are interested in might be an audio CD with lots of tracks, and be playable in your car. Total up the track lengths (if that information is available). If it's less than 80 minutes you may be in luck; if it's more than that, then it's very probably an MP3 (or similar lossy-encoded) disc and your car player probably won't recognize it.   If it's MP3, you could buy it, use a PC to decompress the individual .MP3 files into audio format, and burn them onto a set of Red Book audio CD-R discs. Those would be playable in your car.

"Gareth Magennis" <soundserviceleeds@outlook.com>: Jul 22 10:14PM +0100 "micky" wrote in message news:s6d7ncdecv29j9dsl1d12it82u8e8gb6ce@4ax.com...   Is my 2004 original equipment CD player likely to be able to play Mp3 cds (in the car I just bought)?   There is one I want to buy (though I dont' have the url now) that had far more songs on it, maybe 50 or 100, than the 15 that I'm used to, and another poster made me realize that this might be a set of MP3 files.   The owners manual says nothing about mp3. That probably means no, right?     **********************************************************     My 1999 Ford Focus Original CD/radio would play a CD full of mp3's no problem.       Gareth.

Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca>: Jul 22 05:33PM -0400

micky <NONONOmisc07@bigfoot.com>: Jul 22 05:46PM -0400 In sci.electronics.repair, on Sat, 22 Jul 2017 22:14:50 +0100, "Gareth   >**********************************************************   >My 1999 Ford Focus Original CD/radio would play a CD full of mp3's no >problem.   OOOO. That sounds good I'm going to have to make one up and test the player with it, and if it works, I can buy that thing above.

micky <NONONOmisc07@bigfoot.com>: Jul 22 05:48PM -0400 In sci.electronics.repair, on Sat, 22 Jul 2017 13:45:24 -0700, >tracks, and be playable in your car. Total up the track lengths (if >that information is available). If it's less than 80 minutes you may >be in luck;   That would be bad for other reasons. If they try to squeeze even 50 songs into 80 minutes, they won't be the versions I want.   if it's more than that, then it's very probably an MP3   >If it's MP3, you could buy it, use a PC to decompress the individual >.MP3 files into audio format, and burn them onto a set of Red Book >audio CD-R discs. Those would be playable in your car.   that sounds like a lot of work! But let me go track down the CD and see if it gives clues related to your post or Gareth's   Thanks all.

micky <NONONOmisc07@bigfoot.com>: Jul 22 03:53PM -0400 The owners manual for my new car says that I must clean the cassette player head and roller after every 30 hours of use,   OR it can become too dirty to clean!!!! Is that true?   The car is from 2004 and i'm guessing it's never had its cassette drive cleaned, but it plays fine. May i wait another 13 years?

dansabrservices@yahoo.com: Jul 22 01:19PM -0700 Cleaning the heads is more dependent upon the quality of the tapes than anything else. At this point, I would use a "WET" cleaner if available. You take the chance of disturbing what little dirt that is there as well. Be careful. If you have any doubt, remove the unit from the vehicle and have a pro clean it. There is a good chance that the belts are nearing their end of life too. These can be changed and the pinch roller can be treated to get it back to normal too.   Dan

tabbypurr@gmail.com: Jul 22 01:35PM -0700 On Saturday, 22 July 2017 20:53:25 UTC+1, micky wrote:   > OR it can become too dirty to clean!!!! Is that true?   > The car is from 2004 and i'm guessing it's never had its cassette drive > cleaned, but it plays fine. May i wait another 13 years?   Alcohol & cotton bud. head & whatsit first, rubber roller last. Drying properly is necessary. You can neglect it but sound quality will really suffer.     NT

"Ian Field" <gangprobing.alien1@virginmedia.com>: Jul 22 07:48PM +0100 <jurb6006@gmail.com> wrote in message news:7c8415df-7758-4f20-b069-41496e88de4f@googlegroups.com...   > I did make some money fixing them but you can't charge that much on those > elcheapo sets.   > Actually though, it was very rare that I had to replace any parts in them.   Never seen an RCA TV in the UK, and I think the GE ones were co produced with Hitachi.   Thorn Consumer Electronics standardised on RCA PIL tubes for a while. There was a lot of re badging about - so hard to keep track.   One of the setups with RCA tubes used a low voltage flyback system - it was hard to get transistors that could handle the current.

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.