sci.electronics.repair@googlegroups.com

Google Groups

micky <NONONOmisc07@bigfoot.com>: Jun 05 10:47PM -0400 In alt.home.repair, on Mon, 3 Jun 2019 21:26:48 -0700, Bob F >> almost $10. Thanks. Expensive but a good idea.   >> Bob, there's one other bulb in the package. I'll try that   >Another model or brand is more likely to make the needed difference.   You're right. I put the noisy LED bulb in the ceiling fixture and now it's about 5 feet from the radio and doesn't interfere at all.   It's called "daylight" and at 100 eq. watts it gave a very strange appearance to the room. I'll probably get used to it. They didn't have anohter low-cost LED at HDepot and ... I'll probably get used to it. After all, it's "daylight".

"pfjw@aol.com" <peterwieck33@gmail.com>: Jun 06 04:33AM -0700 On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 10:47:05 PM UTC-4, micky wrote:   > appearance to the room. I'll probably get used to it. They didn't > have anohter low-cost LED at HDepot and ... I'll probably get used to > it. After all, it's "daylight".   "Daylight" is generally around 5000 - 6500 kelvin. With LED devices, the CRI (Color Rendering Index) for such a (cheap) lamp will be somewhere between 50 and 80, or in other words, pretty wretched. LED lamps with both a high CRI and a high K tend to be costly relative to the cheapies. Strange appearance, indeed.   Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA

Mark Lloyd <not@mail.invalid>: Jun 06 10:19AM -0500 On 6/5/19 9:47 PM, micky wrote:   [snip]   > appearance to the room. I'll probably get used to it. They didn't > have anohter low-cost LED at HDepot and ... I'll probably get used to > it. After all, it's "daylight".   I find the old "dirty yellow" bulbs looking worse and worse now that real white is available.   -- Mark Lloyd http://notstupid.us/   "Now just behold these miserable, blind, and senseless people." [Martin Luther,"On the Jews and Their Lies",1543]

vhm.14u2c@gmail.com: Jun 06 06:14AM -0700 I have the same problem, Sony reciever str-av570, that keeps going into protect mode intermittently, even when the reciever is off, will intermittently do relay click and loudness amber led(s) on the front will glow gradually, off, and repeat till I unplug it. Back in 2003-2004, I took my reciever to a authorized sony service center that did not know how to fix it, but charged me $35 to inspect device anyways. From the replies on this post, looks like a good place to start. Thanks for sharing!

Chuck <ch@dejanews.net>: Jun 06 10:13AM -0500 >I have the same problem, Sony reciever str-av570, that keeps going into protect mode intermittently, even when the reciever is off, will intermittently do relay click and loudness amber led(s) on the front will glow gradually, off, and repeat till I unplug it. Back in 2003-2004, I took my reciever to a authorized sony service center that did not know how to fix it, but charged me $35 to inspect device anyways. From the replies on this post, looks like a good place to start. Thanks for sharing! Common problem back in the day. Solder a wire from the front panel circuit board ground to the main board ground and another to the metal chassis. Tighten all board screws. (Did warranty work for Sony Audio)

makolber@yahoo.com: Jun 06 07:36AM -0700 > proper external speakers and better bass/treble controls. I usually > need to couple it through an isolation xformer to avoid hummmmm caused > by a ground loop.     TVs these days have Class D balanced drivers feeding the speakers with little filtering.   This makes it a PITA to get audio out if the set does not already have that feature.   I needed to use small audio transformers and low pass filters to get the switching freq down.   And after all that, there still was no bass, I had to find a hidden sub menu to change the audio mode to full range.   mark

bruce2bowser@gmail.com: Jun 05 06:52PM -0700 On Monday, June 3, 2019 at 11:22:49 AM UTC-4, Lee wrote in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh: > an-to-keep-a-coal-plant-running/?fbclid=IwAR0DlGYi6fm2aDJpi8QanFNfyEQr4b > F-R_llyRTJL9IW_v80XixQ0LngsAQ&utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_con > tent=link&ICID=ref_fark   New Wind And Solar Now Cheaper Than 74% Of Existing US Coal Plants, Study Says Electrek-Mar 27, 2019 -- https://electrek.co/2019/03/27/wind-solar-cheaper-coal/   'damn' liberals kickin' your ass all over the place

tabbypurr@gmail.com: Jun 05 09:56PM -0700 > Electrek-Mar 27, 2019 > -- https://electrek.co/2019/03/27/wind-solar-cheaper-coal/   > 'damn' liberals kickin' your ass all over the place   If any reader thinks a megawatt of intermittent wind power can replace a megawatt of coal, gas or nuclear, they really don't get it.     NT

Fox's Mercantile <jdangus@att.net>: Jun 06 12:52AM -0500 > If any reader thinks a megawatt of intermittent wind power can > replace a megawatt of coal, gas or nuclear, they really don't get it.   First off, learn how to use your editor. There's absolutely NO reason what so ever to include the entire two previous posts.   Secondly, wind is no more or less stable then the supply chains for gas and coal.   As a matter fact, several major coal companies have either filed bankruptcy, or have shut down entirely.   Natural gas ain't exactly fool proof either. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliso_Canyon_gas_leak>   Wind farms are expensive, they tend to do a serious site survey as to the constant values of wind speed. I.e. 24/7 availability.   Then, of course, you had clowns like Enron shutting down various facilities just to increase the spot pricing of electricity.   But go ahead, keep finding fault in that which you don't understand.         -- "I am a river to my people." Jeff-1.0 WA6FWi http:foxsmercantile.com

tabbypurr@gmail.com: Jun 06 12:09AM -0700 On Thursday, 6 June 2019 06:52:50 UTC+1, Fox's Mercantile wrote:   > First off, learn how to use your editor. > There's absolutely NO reason what so ever to include the entire two > previous posts.   funny guy   > Secondly, wind is no more or less stable then the supply chains for > gas and coal.   Massively wrong. That's the whole problem with wind   > As a matter fact, several major coal companies have either filed > bankruptcy, or have shut down entirely.   Sure, nothing to do with wind of course   > Natural gas ain't exactly fool proof either. > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliso_Canyon_gas_leak>   No method is foolproof, or ever was.   > Wind farms are expensive, they tend to do a serious site survey as > to the constant values of wind speed. I.e. 24/7 availability.   There is no 24/7 availability. That's the problem.   > Then, of course, you had clowns like Enron shutting down various > facilities just to increase the spot pricing of electricity.   What has that to do with the viability of windpower.   > But go ahead, keep finding fault in that which you don't understand.   Your points are either irrelevant or wrong.     NT

"pfjw@aol.com" <peterwieck33@gmail.com>: Jun 06 04:14AM -0700 Jeff:   Tabby gives clear and direct meaning to the term "invincible ignorance" as no matter how clearly they might be presented, he will not be confused by mere facts.   The Iberdrola wind farm in Colummbia County, PA has a reliability record that matches Berwick Nuclear nearby.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locust_Ridge_Wind_Farm   It will make 'nameplate' at any range from 7 mph to 54 mph wind-speed. And its site will deliver that 7 all day, every day.   Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA

tabbypurr@gmail.com: Jun 06 04:35AM -0700 > Jeff:   > Tabby gives clear and direct meaning to the term "invincible ignorance" as no matter how clearly they might be presented, he will not be confused by mere facts.   from the guy that insists the smpsu dissipates more heat than the LEDs it drives       > It will make 'nameplate' at any range from 7 mph to 54 mph wind-speed. And its site will deliver that 7 all day, every day.   > Peter Wieck > Melrose Park, PA     Let's establish some actual facts if we can. Your link says: "The wind farm has a combined total nameplate capacity of 26 MW, producing about 68,328 megawatt-hours of electricity annually,   26MW x 8760hrs = 227,760 MWh if it ran at 100% capacity, which of course it can't. 68328/227760 MWh = 30% capacity.   A conventional plant with only 30% capacity is a disaster if you need to rely on its output at times. With a wind installation at 30% the operator is not in control of its uptime, that is left to the vagaries of nature. Hence with such generation, to keep the lights on one must have duplicate controllable generation of the same capacity elsewhere - and that makes the wind farm a pointless spending of money. It is nothing more than a political appeal to ignorant greens. To say the windfarm is comparable to a coal plant shows a fundamental level of ignorance of power generation.     NT

"pfjw@aol.com" <peterwieck33@gmail.com>: Jun 06 04:52AM -0700 You need to get out of theory and into actual practice. Again, you seem to accumulate only those facts as fit your ignorance.   Locust ridge is operating with 64 turbines at just under 67% of nameplate capacity. Which is entirely to be inspected as a group of those turbines are typically down for *planned* service & maintenance. The most efficient coal-fired plants on the planet operate at 40% energy-transfer efficiency, and are down, on average, about 30 days per year for maintenance, three times that about every 3-4 years.   That is in actual practice. Not theory.   As with LED drivers - just look at the typical RAB or CREE exterior LED lamp - and ask yourself where the heat-sink(s) is (are). On the driver? On the emitters? And, most of them make 130 lumens per watt, or more... right now.   Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA

tabbypurr@gmail.com: Jun 06 05:24AM -0700 > You need to get out of theory and into actual practice. Again, you seem to accumulate only those facts as fit your ignorance.   I see you're keeping up the bs. Let's look at some facts instead...     > Locust ridge is operating with 64 turbines at just under 67% of nameplate capacity.   the numbers you referred to show 30% capacity. No wind farm manages 67%. 30% is good going by wind standards.   > Which is entirely to be inspected   67% of capacity would be an amazing achievement for any windfarm. Even if one day that can be achieved - and the theory indicates it can not - it still would not be able to replace conventional generation.   > as a group of those turbines are typically down for *planned* service & maintenance. The most efficient coal-fired plants on the planet operate at 40% energy-transfer efficiency,   their energy transfer efficiency has absolutely nothing to do with this. Zero relevance.   > and are down, on average, about 30 days per year for maintenance, three times that about every 3-4 years.   Every type of plant goes down for maintenance. Being able to plan that downtime is a lot more useful than being at the mercy of partially-predictable wind.   > That is in actual practice. Not theory.   Well, it isn't but hey.     > As with LED drivers - just look at the typical RAB or CREE exterior LED lamp - and ask yourself where the heat-sink(s) is (are). On the driver? On the emitters?   That you think the SMPSUs used are below 50% efficient shows gross ignorance of lighting products & PSU design. Discussing the heatsink question at the moment seems pointless.     > And, most of them make 130 lumens per watt, or more... right now.   > Peter Wieck > Melrose Park, PA   Some may, and more has been achieved. But the average product in the shops here certainly doesn't.     NT

Rheilly Phoull <rheilly@bigslong.com>: Jun 06 06:43AM +0800 On 5/06/2019 11:37 pm, bitrex wrote:   >> be the last machine I buy from this company just avoid these shit heads.   > It's too bad ThinkPad used to be a quality product when IBM made them > but it's just bargain basement zombie-brand China junk, now.   HMMM, you buy cheap you get cheap ??

bitrex <user@example.net>: Jun 05 07:19PM -0400 On 6/5/19 6:43 PM, Rheilly Phoull wrote:   >> It's too bad ThinkPad used to be a quality product when IBM made them >> but it's just bargain basement zombie-brand China junk, now.   > HMMM, you buy cheap you get cheap ??   They're not even that cheap

bitrex <user@example.net>: Jun 05 07:21PM -0400 On 6/5/19 6:43 PM, Rheilly Phoull wrote:   >> It's too bad ThinkPad used to be a quality product when IBM made them >> but it's just bargain basement zombie-brand China junk, now.   > HMMM, you buy cheap you get cheap ??   "bargain basement" was a commentary on the quality not the price, rather, they're not even that much cheaper as compared to competing products in the same class from e.g. Asus, IMO a better supplier in most respects based in Taiwan.

Rheilly Phoull <rheilly@bigslong.com>: Jun 06 08:54AM +0800 On 6/06/2019 7:21 am, bitrex wrote: > rather, they're not even that much cheaper as compared to competing > products in the same class from e.g. Asus, IMO a better supplier in most > respects based in Taiwan.   Yup, still most of neg raps come dissatisfied users but not much from the satisfied ones.

bitrex <user@example.net>: Jun 05 09:10PM -0400 On 6/5/19 8:54 PM, Rheilly Phoull wrote: >> most respects based in Taiwan.   > Yup, still most of neg raps come dissatisfied users but not much from > the satisfied ones.   Mostly a slam at their US-based service. Under IBM I'm sure it was pretty good for the product. this repair case was sent to their main US center and they can't even print up a replacement serial # sticker (for the one that was never affixed at the factory.)   they're using marker. marker!   you're using coconuts! - <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XPnIUtcANg>

Rheilly Phoull <rheilly@bigslong.com>: Jun 06 01:36PM +0800 On 6/06/2019 9:10 am, bitrex wrote: > the one that was never affixed at the factory.)   > they're using marker. marker!   > you're using coconuts! - <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XPnIUtcANg>   Actually I've got a couple of their PC's and they seem well made and easy to service / modify.

bitrex <user@example.net>: Jun 05 02:18PM -0400 > I can see an ad in IEEE spectrum: Wanted - electronics engineer/physicist experienced in electronic vacuum tube design and fabrication. Don't think I'd get many takers. > Looks like will have to subsist on Russian and Chinese 'knock-offs'... > Well, it was a nice dream...   I have an number of Raytheon-branded tubes e.g. 6201, an industrial 12AT7, and another numerical-tube starting with 6, some 12Axx-type for computer use that I'm blanking on the number of.   Do you know if Raytheon produced these in-house or were they second-sourced?

sceptre@sdf.lonestar.org: Jun 06 12:53AM >12AT7, and another numerical-tube starting with 6, some 12Axx-type for >computer use that I'm blanking on the number of.   >Do you know if Raytheon produced these in-house or were they second-sourced?   Check the EIA Code: https://www.vivatubes.com/identifying-vintage-nos-vacuum-tubes-by-brand-country-and-eia-code/ https://www.tubemuseum.org/SearchResults.asp?Cat=30   Sceptre -- sceptre@sdf.org SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.org

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.