On 7/18/2011 11:45 AM, Bill wrote:
> Swingman wrote:
> Hmm.. I think ours goes through a pvc pipe directly down into the
> sewer/drainage.
That's one ... there usually is another safety pan under the evaporator
coils that, in the last 20 years +, most often drains outside.
<when building a new house I'm always asked at some point where I want
the overflow pan to drain ... my response is usually "over the front
door, where they won't be able to miss it!" ... it is the leading cause
of ceiling drywall repairs in hot, humid climates> ;)
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)
On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 05:49:26 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>Larry Jaques wrote:
>> On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 17:35:29 -0500, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/10/2011 5:14 PM, Robatoy wrote:
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/5tex8ts
>>>
>>> Commercial TV quickly morphed into a mindless wasteland, now that you
>>> pay for the privilege, it's a toxic dump.
>>
>> I'm much happier since I dumped DISH TV 5 years ago. I now watch only
>> the movies I like, with absolutely no commercials, and I save $50 a
>> month doing so. Netflix is cool. TV sucks the big one.
>>
>> Now, when I see a TV set on, I walk away. I couldn't stand what it
>> had become 5 years ago, but today it's 200% worse, at minimum. Feh!
>>
>> I'd rather be uninformed than "full-frontal-attack misinformed", TYVM.
>>
>
>Of course, there is so much Quantity. Most of it isn't too good.
>I browsed the ads a little closer last week. Looks like some of the new
>"TVs" are Internet-friendly (Sony and Samsung) and some have Wi-Fi so
>you'll be able to download movies and make Internet queries without any
>wires.
For an extra fee.
>I think anyone considering a tv purchase should be aware of
>these new aspects of the technology. HHGreg just advertised a Samsung
>46" unit with the features above for $1099, and 55" for $1499. At least
>the products seems to be getting more interesting and the prices are
>getting more attractive.
I could get 4 movies a week for 93.7 years for the same price as that
55-incher. Or a new 37" widescreen HDTV and 62.5 years of movies.
What the hell is attractive about those prices, Bill? Crikey!
>With DVR, I watch more things I like than I
>used to. Football season will be coming around soon, I hope. I've heard
>something about a strike (I don't hang on every word).
The football strike (the very first one) was what made me start
questioning my watching of sports. I realized that if they didn't
respect the fans enough to continue playing, they didn't deserve any
loyalty, either. I quit watching it. Now they're on their third.
Uckemfall. Ditto baseball and bassetball. Who needs 'em?
Saving grace: With a DVR, you could watch an entire football game in
one hour, saving two hours of lousy commercials and commentary.
--
Progress is the product of human agency. Things get better because we
make them better. Things go wrong when we get too comfortable, when we
fail to take risks or seize opportunities.
-- Susan Rice
In article
<[email protected]>,
Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > If you want to go back further I fondly recall The Avengers :-).
> >
>
> What is easier to look at... Emma Peel or Steed's 1928 Bentley.......?
> <G>
>
Yes.
In article <[email protected]>, Larry Jaques
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Ditto, but especially Emma Peel.
That's Mrs. Peel to you, C-less.
<g>
In article <[email protected]>, Larry Jaques
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 22:57:18 -0600, Dave Balderstone
> <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>, Larry Jaques
> ><[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Ditto, but especially Emma Peel.
> >
> >That's Mrs. Peel to you, C-less.
>
> Wouldn't have stopped me, Baldy. Wouldn't have stopped me.
Me neither... She was HOT.
> _She_ may have, though. <drat>
>
> Looking back, it was dreadfully produced, bad TV, but the fantasy
> carried it off. Kung Fu and China Beach were much better done.
In article <[email protected]>, Larry Blanchard
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jul 2011 15:45:36 -0600, Dave Balderstone wrote:
>
> >> >> Ditto, but especially Emma Peel.
> >> >
> >> >That's Mrs. Peel to you, C-less.
> >>
> >> Wouldn't have stopped me, Baldy. Wouldn't have stopped me.
> >
> > Me neither... She was HOT.
>
> She was hotter at 50 than most women at 25 :-).
>
> BTW, a few weeks ago I found a set of 36 VHS tapes of Avengers episodes
> from '63 thru '67. 13 episodes per year. Commercially reproduced, not
> homegrown copies. Cost me $7. We're currently converting them all to
> DVD.
>
> Does that deserve a "you suck"?
Major suckitude, dude.
In article <[email protected]>, HeyBub
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Reminds me of the book "The Last Centurion"
Ringo is a great author. I love his "Kildar" series, but "The Last
Centurion" should be required reading at about grade 7 or 8.
Just as a reality check.
On Sun, 17 Jul 2011 20:18:07 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>Larry Jaques wrote:
>> On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 17:35:29 -0500, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/10/2011 5:14 PM, Robatoy wrote:
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/5tex8ts
>>>
>>> Commercial TV quickly morphed into a mindless wasteland, now that you
>>> pay for the privilege, it's a toxic dump.
>>
>> I'm much happier since I dumped DISH TV 5 years ago. I now watch only
>> the movies I like, with absolutely no commercials, and I save $50 a
>> month doing so. Netflix is cool. TV sucks the big one.
>>
>> Now, when I see a TV set on, I walk away. I couldn't stand what it
>> had become 5 years ago, but today it's 200% worse, at minimum. Feh!
>>
>> I'd rather be uninformed than "full-frontal-attack misinformed", TYVM.
>
>Since our air-conditioner isn't keeping up with the heat Mother Nature
>is dispensing, it occurred to me to take a trip to Frys Electronics to
>see about upgrading our 16 year old Magnavox tv.
That makes sense? Bad a/c = shopping for a new TV!
>Adding to what I learned while I was having some auto work done the
>other day: Evidently LED is now a winner over LCD and units connected to
>the Internet are on the way to becoming the norm (I was told Samsung was
All LED sets are actually LCD sets with either backlit LED format,
which takes a lot of power (as does Plasma), or edgelit LED which
allows for the 1/2" thick screens. Edgelits are probably the best
value right now at only a slight price margin, with backlits almost
double the price. I researched TVs recently and helped install one
for my neighbor. My old tube set is still working fine, and with
Netflix doubling their damned prices (33.3-50%) next month, I'm glad I
didn't take that $600 plunge myself.
>pushing by not introducing any other sort). Of course, from what I saw
>(keeps me on-topic) those sets are not ready for prime time, having
>merely a cell-phone type interface.
I have no idea what you saw, but it sure sounds weird.
>I still don't have or want a cell phone.
I have (but -exceedingly- seldom use) a cell phone. I use it when
clients give me bogus directions to their house.
>Of course, then there is audio. I saw some sound bars (they are bigger
Sound bars? Forget it! The stereo separation sucks with them.
Use a surround sound system, Bill. Even the cheapies add a real
dimension to action/adventure movies. I bought that 5.1 Technics
receiver 13 years ago and it still sounds good. 2 fronts, 2 rears, and
the center channel speaker. The Bose 501s (fronts) kick out a pretty
hefty bass so I didn't necessarily need the subwoofer. The little ESS
bookshelf rears bring out the spacial effects, and the old 12" woofer
from my parents' 50s stereo set into a Pioneer HPM-40 speaker
enclosure fills in the center channel just fine.
>than I remember them). That may be the ticket. Course figuring out a
>good alternative to Comcast's "triple play" would be attractive too.
>Frys had a pile of MagicJack's (USB phone device) for $40 (+$19.95/yr).
>That may be a good start if it works!
More bogosity.
>I reminded myself that I don't even like tv that much and came home
>unscathed--but cooler, and with a slab of ribs. : )
Bueno.
>Anyone who can't tell the difference between a "need" and a "want" is at
>a big disadvantage these days.
Amen to that.
>At the end of the day I better appreciate the longevity of i'rn, the
>peace that I find in good books, and visiting with you folks here.
I'll second that! (now that twit filters handle the other 75%)
P.S: Please don't misspell 'old arn' again, sir.
--
Life is an escalator:
You can move forward or backward;
you can not remain still.
-- Patricia Russell-McCloud
On Tue, 12 Jul 2011 13:06:02 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>Larry Jaques wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 23:16:03 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 09:38:08 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>>
>>>> I wait for those few (only 1/2 dozen in a _decade_?<sigh>) to come out
>>>> on DVD: House, Bones, CSI, NCIS, Justified, Fringe, etc.
>>>
>>> None of those appeal to me. I guess the last shows I can remember really
>>> enjoying regularly were Cheers, Frasier, All In The Family, Hill Street
>>> Blues, and of course M.A.S.H. And HSB was getting pretty bad in the last
>>> season.
>>
>> Wow, MASH was the only one of those I watched regularly, Archie
>> occasionally.
I just realized that I watched HSB, too. Veronica Hamel was a hottie.
I was thinking that was the Simpsons-like cartoon with rednecks, um,
King of the Hill. (had to look it up) I've never watched that one.
>Fred of Sanford and Son also had some sort of appeal (to me). I went to
>see him in Las Vegas, but he wasn't the same innocent guy I had seen on
>tv. Still, no regrets about seeing his act.
Har! Redd Fox was -=never=- an innocent, ever. <snort> I think the F
word was invented for him. He was a -very- funny guy, but only if
you're OK with cursing.
--
Fear not those who argue but those who dodge.
-- Marie Ebner von Eschenbach
On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 23:16:03 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 09:38:08 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:
>
>> I wait for those few (only 1/2 dozen in a _decade_? <sigh>) to come out
>> on DVD: House, Bones, CSI, NCIS, Justified, Fringe, etc.
>
>None of those appeal to me. I guess the last shows I can remember really
>enjoying regularly were Cheers, Frasier, All In The Family, Hill Street
>Blues, and of course M.A.S.H. And HSB was getting pretty bad in the last
>season.
Wow, MASH was the only one of those I watched regularly, Archie
occasionally.
>If you want to go back further I fondly recall The Avengers :-).
Ditto, but especially Emma Peel.
--
Win first, Fight later.
--martial principle of the Samurai
On Jul 10, 6:38=A0pm, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" wrote:
> >http://tinyurl.com/5tex8ts
>
> ------------------------------------
> You can add:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/6jnjsrn
>
> Lew
One talking head made a few good points:
Had nancy grace ( I refuse to capitalize her name) not pushed and
pushed this whole Anthony deal up the charts, Anthony would not have
ended up with a decent legal team, pro bono, but it also would have
been unlikely that the prosecution would have overreached the way they
did.
Ergo:" nancy grace was the reason "totmom" walked.
On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 22:57:18 -0600, Dave Balderstone
<dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, Larry Jaques
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Ditto, but especially Emma Peel.
>
>That's Mrs. Peel to you, C-less.
Wouldn't have stopped me, Baldy. Wouldn't have stopped me.
_She_ may have, though. <drat>
Looking back, it was dreadfully produced, bad TV, but the fantasy
carried it off. Kung Fu and China Beach were much better done.
--
Win first, Fight later.
--martial principle of the Samurai
Bill wrote:
>
> Your first guess was right--bad capacitor. He installed a generic one
> of the right size, and is coming back tomorrow with a "Carrier"
> branded one. $264 including tax.
Bill - Why???? Certainly you understand that the logo'd cap is just a
marketing scheme - don't you? You do understand that there is no
difference - don't you?
> I noticed online that those parts
> seem to go for about $40, so next time I may have a go at it myself
> ("pull the power, remove cover, simple swap". He said they normally
> last 5-7 years and our unit is 10 years old. And yes, I DO have
> some idea what capacitors are capable of! : ) Although I've never
> handled such a large one (50.5 + 7.5). Probably still very tiny by
> Lew's standards.
And armed with this understanding, you are going to pay the Carrier price...
why???
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Dave Balderstone wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, HeyBub
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Reminds me of the book "The Last Centurion"
>
> Ringo is a great author. I love his "Kildar" series, but "The Last
> Centurion" should be required reading at about grade 7 or 8.
>
> Just as a reality check.
But, but, but... the book has (a few) naughty words! And it has that
situation where his 120 men (and 60 Nepalese) took "temporary" Muslim wives!
Plus his president is so thinly disguised (i.e., Hillary Clinton), that the
kids would reject his dissing of her!
Think of the children.
Robatoy wrote the following:
> http://tinyurl.com/5tex8ts
>
Grace is bad enough, but Jane Velez-Mitchell is even worse. I don't
think she has a normal voice. She has to shout everything and her face
looks like she could kill.
She is probably the masculine leaning partner in her lesbian relationships.
--
Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
In the original Orange County. Est. 1683
To email, remove the double zeroes after @
Dave Balderstone wrote:
>>
>> Does that deserve a "you suck"?
>
> Major suckitude, dude.
Reminds me of the book "The Last Centurion" when the main character, Captain
Bandit, called it the "Time of Suckage." Units were being redeployed back to
the U.S. from Iran to deal with domestic difficulties while he and his 120
men were left behind to inventory and guard the material left behind. How
much material?
--- begin quote
People just don't understand the enormous mass of materials that modern
units require to keep doing their jobs. I'll put it this way. Think of a
really big football stadium. Now imagine filling it to the brim with ...
stuff. You don't want to break stuff so you put tanks at the bottom. Put
armored personnel carriers on top. Keep stacking. Fill it from side to side
and all the way to the top. Ammunition, parts, rations, tents, snivel gear,
weapons, batteries. (My God do we use a lot of batteries. Remember, I was
responsible for making sure the guys in my battalion had all this shit. I
know whereof I speak.)
That's the logistics we had in Iran for ONE brigade. A stadium full of ...
stuff.
One.
We had six in country. And all the supplies for the camp followers. (Support
and Supply.)
[...]
We piled and piled and stacked and stacked and stacked on top of parked and
parked on top of stacked.
[...]
The army does not run on MREs. Most "long storage" rations are in large cans
(called Number 10 for really obscure historical reasons.) Unless you've got
really large hands, you can't get two around them.
We had 42 ACRES of "long storage" rations. Boxes of Number 10 cans stacked
TWO STORIES HIGH. We had another FOURTEEN ACRES of MREs.
When you're discussing MREs in terms of acres, you know something has gotten
truly screwed up.
The total coverage area of all the mass of material that was to be "left in
place" and "secured" was right at two thousand acres.
Unless you've lived in someplace like Kansas or Nebraska, you've probably
never SEEN two thousand acres. That's three square miles. Think a box a mile
and three-quarters across and wide covered in ... stuff. Tanks, trucks,
water blivets, stacked tents, weapons, internal bermed areas for ammunition
dumps. Concertina wire, thank God.
[...]
I don't know what fucking lottery led to OUR battalion being tasked to leave
ONE COMPANY to do the job of a fucking BRIGADE but we got handed the shit
end of the stick.
--- end quote
Captain Bandit goes on to have many adventures, including a replay of
Anabasis where Xenophon, the last remaining leader of the Greek army managed
to fight his way from Persia to the Black Sea. And what he did in Detroit,
whew, it'll blow your mind.
On 7/17/2011 11:45 PM, Bill wrote:
> The AC has been running non-stop, and the thermostat has read 87 for
> the last 3 hours, so I asked my wife to call "The Man" tomorrow morning.
> Hopefully the thermostat is broken! ; )
Much better to have turned it off when that happens. If you know where
the compressor is and can verify that it is running, turn the unit off
immediately. By leaving it running you can almost guarantee yourself a
bigger repair bill. Cause of symptom generally either a bad capacitor,
low on freon, evaporator coils frozen, compressor bad.
You will also want to check that your overflow pan is not stopped up.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)
On Jul 12, 8:32=A0am, Larry Jaques <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 22:57:18 -0600, Dave Balderstone
>
> <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
> >In article <[email protected]>, Larry Jaques
> ><[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> Ditto, but especially Emma Peel.
>
> >That's Mrs. Peel to you, C-less.
>
> Wouldn't have stopped me, Baldy. Wouldn't have stopped me.
> _She_ may have, though. =A0<drat>
>
> Looking back, it was dreadfully produced, bad TV, but the fantasy
> carried it off. =A0Kung Fu and China Beach were much better done.
>
And that reminds me of a friend's comment on a bluegrass band we
watched a few years back.
The lead singer and fiddler was a very pretty girl with a nice voice
but with mediocre fiddling ability.
His comment? "You don't have to play the fiddle that well with tits
like that."
On Jul 10, 11:07=A0pm, Larry Jaques <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 17:35:29 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On 7/10/2011 5:14 PM, Robatoy wrote:
> >>http://tinyurl.com/5tex8ts
>
> >Commercial TV quickly morphed into a mindless wasteland, now that you
> >pay for the privilege, it's a toxic dump.
>
> I'm much happier since I dumped DISH TV 5 years ago. I now watch only
> the movies I like, with absolutely no commercials, and I save $50 a
> month doing so. =A0Netflix is cool. =A0 TV sucks the big one.
>
> Now, when I see a TV set on, I walk away. =A0I couldn't stand what it
> had become 5 years ago, but today it's 200% worse, at minimum. Feh!
>
> I'd rather be uninformed than "full-frontal-attack misinformed", TYVM.
>
Fark.com is my main source. Period.
I am, for real, looking into an antenna. A guy around the corner from
me has a set-up with a TV, which has the digital decoder built in.
The quality and selection are amazing. 36 channels from a 40 ft tower.
The whole kit cost him $700.00 all new Channel Master stuff, coax. A
set-up like that and Netflix via Apple TV will do me.
In article <[email protected]>,
Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sun, 17 Jul 2011 20:18:07 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Larry Jaques wrote:
>>> On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 17:35:29 -0500, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 7/10/2011 5:14 PM, Robatoy wrote:
>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/5tex8ts
>>>>
>>>> Commercial TV quickly morphed into a mindless wasteland, now that you
>>>> pay for the privilege, it's a toxic dump.
>>>
>>> I'm much happier since I dumped DISH TV 5 years ago. I now watch only
>>> the movies I like, with absolutely no commercials, and I save $50 a
>>> month doing so. Netflix is cool. TV sucks the big one.
>>>
>>> Now, when I see a TV set on, I walk away. I couldn't stand what it
>>> had become 5 years ago, but today it's 200% worse, at minimum. Feh!
>>>
>>> I'd rather be uninformed than "full-frontal-attack misinformed", TYVM.
>>
>>Since our air-conditioner isn't keeping up with the heat Mother Nature
>>is dispensing, it occurred to me to take a trip to Frys Electronics to
>>see about upgrading our 16 year old Magnavox tv.
>
>That makes sense? Bad a/c = shopping for a new TV!
>
Bad a/c ==> go somewhere with better a/c.
makes sense to me! <grin>
'looking at new TVs' was just the 'excuse'.
On Jul 13, 12:38=A0am, Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jul 2011 15:45:36 -0600, Dave Balderstone wrote:
> >> >> Ditto, but especially Emma Peel.
>
> >> >That's Mrs. Peel to you, C-less.
>
> >> Wouldn't have stopped me, Baldy. Wouldn't have stopped me.
>
> > Me neither... She was HOT.
>
> She was hotter at 50 than most women at 25 :-).
>
> BTW, a few weeks ago I found a set of 36 VHS tapes of Avengers episodes
> from '63 thru '67. =A013 episodes per year. =A0Commercially reproduced, n=
ot
> homegrown copies. =A0Cost me $7. =A0We're currently converting them all t=
o
> DVD.
>
> Does that deserve a "you suck"?
>
Indeed it does.
On 7/17/2011 7:18 PM, Bill wrote:
> Larry Jaques wrote:
>> On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 17:35:29 -0500, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/10/2011 5:14 PM, Robatoy wrote:
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/5tex8ts
>>>
>>> Commercial TV quickly morphed into a mindless wasteland, now that you
>>> pay for the privilege, it's a toxic dump.
>>
>> I'm much happier since I dumped DISH TV 5 years ago. I now watch only
>> the movies I like, with absolutely no commercials, and I save $50 a
>> month doing so. Netflix is cool. TV sucks the big one.
>>
>> Now, when I see a TV set on, I walk away. I couldn't stand what it
>> had become 5 years ago, but today it's 200% worse, at minimum. Feh!
>>
>> I'd rather be uninformed than "full-frontal-attack misinformed", TYVM.
>
> Since our air-conditioner isn't keeping up with the heat Mother Nature
> is dispensing, it occurred to me to take a trip to Frys Electronics to
> see about upgrading our 16 year old Magnavox tv.
>
> Adding to what I learned while I was having some auto work done the
> other day: Evidently LED is now a winner over LCD and units connected to
> the Internet are on the way to becoming the norm (I was told Samsung was
> pushing by not introducing any other sort).
LED is an improved lighting over the normal LCD florescent back
lighting. LED does not replace LCD, it lights it. Basically you have
LCD, LED LCD, and a very expensive OLED LCD, "Organic LED".
On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 17:35:29 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 7/10/2011 5:14 PM, Robatoy wrote:
>> http://tinyurl.com/5tex8ts
>
>Commercial TV quickly morphed into a mindless wasteland, now that you
>pay for the privilege, it's a toxic dump.
I'm much happier since I dumped DISH TV 5 years ago. I now watch only
the movies I like, with absolutely no commercials, and I save $50 a
month doing so. Netflix is cool. TV sucks the big one.
Now, when I see a TV set on, I walk away. I couldn't stand what it
had become 5 years ago, but today it's 200% worse, at minimum. Feh!
I'd rather be uninformed than "full-frontal-attack misinformed", TYVM.
--
Progress is the product of human agency. Things get better because we
make them better. Things go wrong when we get too comfortable, when we
fail to take risks or seize opportunities.
-- Susan Rice
On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 16:23:54 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 20:07:30 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:
>
>>>Commercial TV quickly morphed into a mindless wasteland, now that you
>>>pay for the privilege, it's a toxic dump.
>>
>> I'm much happier since I dumped DISH TV 5 years ago. I now watch only
>> the movies I like, with absolutely no commercials, and I save $50 a
>> month doing so. Netflix is cool. TV sucks the big one.
>
>In general I agree. But we're both addicted to the mysteries on PBS, not
>to mention the Woodwrights Shop and similar. Luckily we get 3 different
>PBS stations.
Nova and Nature both took dumps, so I lost interest. I hadn't been
able to get The Woodwright's Shop on PBS up here so PBS is outta there
for me.
>Other than than PBS, we watch NBC news and NASCAR races - guess I'm a
>closet redneck :-). And every now and then something on one of the
>history channels or speedvision (I love the annual Goodwood event).
Confession is good for the soul.
>As for movies, we're profiting from old technology. We can pick up VHS
>tapes at garage sales for 25 or 50 cents. With a $20 "signal stabilizer"
>we can convert them to DVD so they'll last forever - or at least for our
>remaining lifetimes.
>
>So yes, most of TV stinks, but there are still a few good shows out there.
I wait for those few (only 1/2 dozen in a _decade_? <sigh>) to come
out on DVD: House, Bones, CSI, NCIS, Justified, Fringe, etc.
--
Win first, Fight later.
--martial principle of the Samurai
In article <[email protected]>, Larry Jaques
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jul 2011 01:49:40 -0600, Dave Balderstone
> <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>, HeyBub
> ><[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Reminds me of the book "The Last Centurion"
> >
> >Ringo is a great author. I love his "Kildar" series, but "The Last
> >Centurion" should be required reading at about grade 7 or 8.
> >
> >Just as a reality check.
>
> I haven't read that one, but my favorite was _Ghost_.
> I love his "Posleen War" series, complete with BunBun.
BunBun rocks...
On Fri, 15 Jul 2011 01:49:40 -0600, Dave Balderstone
<dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, HeyBub
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Reminds me of the book "The Last Centurion"
>
>Ringo is a great author. I love his "Kildar" series, but "The Last
>Centurion" should be required reading at about grade 7 or 8.
>
>Just as a reality check.
I haven't read that one, but my favorite was _Ghost_.
I love his "Posleen War" series, complete with BunBun.
--
Learning to ignore things is one of the great paths to inner peace.
-- Robert J. Sawyer
On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 20:29:24 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Jul 10, 11:07 pm, Larry Jaques <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>> On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 17:35:29 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >On 7/10/2011 5:14 PM, Robatoy wrote:
>> >>http://tinyurl.com/5tex8ts
>>
>> >Commercial TV quickly morphed into a mindless wasteland, now that you
>> >pay for the privilege, it's a toxic dump.
>>
>> I'm much happier since I dumped DISH TV 5 years ago. I now watch only
>> the movies I like, with absolutely no commercials, and I save $50 a
>> month doing so. Netflix is cool. TV sucks the big one.
>>
>> Now, when I see a TV set on, I walk away. I couldn't stand what it
>> had become 5 years ago, but today it's 200% worse, at minimum. Feh!
>>
>> I'd rather be uninformed than "full-frontal-attack misinformed", TYVM.
>>
>Fark.com is my main source. Period.
>I am, for real, looking into an antenna. A guy around the corner from
>me has a set-up with a TV, which has the digital decoder built in.
>The quality and selection are amazing. 36 channels from a 40 ft tower.
>The whole kit cost him $700.00 all new Channel Master stuff, coax. A
>set-up like that and Netflix via Apple TV will do me.
36 channels of 80% shit/20% obnoxious commercials. Whoopee!
30 minute news = 17 mins of specious news, 13 mins of commercials.
Why on Earth would anyone spend money on TV nowadays? My neighbor
watches the news and then comes to me to complain about goings on. I
no longer care. There's nothing I can do about any of the stories, so
why worry? They come back a week later and explain why 90% of what
they just broadcast was wrong, anyway, so what's the big deal?
SUGGESTION: Get completely away from TV and radio for a couple weeks
and then walk into a room where one is playing. You'll then be able to
see why I'm joyously without TV for years. (I mean, don't even be in a
place where you can hear one commercial or one obnoxious commentator
for a couple weeks. The next time you hear one you'll cancel your TV
feed and rip the radio right out of your vehicle.)
--
Progress is the product of human agency. Things get better because we
make them better. Things go wrong when we get too comfortable, when we
fail to take risks or seize opportunities.
-- Susan Rice
Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 17:35:29 -0500, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 7/10/2011 5:14 PM, Robatoy wrote:
>>> http://tinyurl.com/5tex8ts
>>
>> Commercial TV quickly morphed into a mindless wasteland, now that you
>> pay for the privilege, it's a toxic dump.
>
> I'm much happier since I dumped DISH TV 5 years ago. I now watch only
> the movies I like, with absolutely no commercials, and I save $50 a
> month doing so. Netflix is cool. TV sucks the big one.
>
> Now, when I see a TV set on, I walk away. I couldn't stand what it
> had become 5 years ago, but today it's 200% worse, at minimum. Feh!
>
> I'd rather be uninformed than "full-frontal-attack misinformed", TYVM.
>
Of course, there is so much Quantity. Most of it isn't too good.
I browsed the ads a little closer last week. Looks like some of the new
"TVs" are Internet-friendly (Sony and Samsung) and some have Wi-Fi so
you'll be able to download movies and make Internet queries without any
wires. I think anyone considering a tv purchase should be aware of
these new aspects of the technology. HHGreg just advertised a Samsung
46" unit with the features above for $1099, and 55" for $1499. At least
the products seems to be getting more interesting and the prices are
getting more attractive. With DVR, I watch more things I like than I
used to. Football season will be coming around soon, I hope. I've heard
something about a strike (I don't hang on every word).
Bill
> --
> Progress is the product of human agency. Things get better because we
> make them better. Things go wrong when we get too comfortable, when we
> fail to take risks or seize opportunities.
> -- Susan Rice
On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 20:07:30 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>Commercial TV quickly morphed into a mindless wasteland, now that you
>>pay for the privilege, it's a toxic dump.
>
> I'm much happier since I dumped DISH TV 5 years ago. I now watch only
> the movies I like, with absolutely no commercials, and I save $50 a
> month doing so. Netflix is cool. TV sucks the big one.
In general I agree. But we're both addicted to the mysteries on PBS, not
to mention the Woodwrights Shop and similar. Luckily we get 3 different
PBS stations.
Other than than PBS, we watch NBC news and NASCAR races - guess I'm a
closet redneck :-). And every now and then something on one of the
history channels or speedvision (I love the annual Goodwood event).
As for movies, we're profiting from old technology. We can pick up VHS
tapes at garage sales for 25 or 50 cents. With a $20 "signal stabilizer"
we can convert them to DVD so they'll last forever - or at least for our
remaining lifetimes.
So yes, most of TV stinks, but there are still a few good shows out there.
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
Larry Jaques wrote:
>> I think anyone considering a tv purchase should be aware of
>> these new aspects of the technology. HHGreg just advertised a Samsung
>> 46" unit with the features above for $1099, and 55" for $1499. At least
>> the products seems to be getting more interesting and the prices are
>> getting more attractive.
>
> I could get 4 movies a week for 93.7 years for the same price as that
> 55-incher. Or a new 37" widescreen HDTV and 62.5 years of movies.
> What the hell is attractive about those prices, Bill? Crikey!
IIRC, in the early 1980s, a 32" LCD was about $3000. In the early 1990s,
a laptop was about $3000. Adjust those for inflation to see what a
"deal" you can get today..lol. By the way, does anyone know a good
place I can take my size 127, I think, film to get developed?
My sentiments are mostly the same as most of the rest around here.
Except I don't mind watching "Wheel of Fortune" with my wife..
And, I don't know what she say if I told her she wouldn't be able to
watch Judge Judy! : )
Bill
On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 09:38:08 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:
> I wait for those few (only 1/2 dozen in a _decade_? <sigh>) to come out
> on DVD: House, Bones, CSI, NCIS, Justified, Fringe, etc.
None of those appeal to me. I guess the last shows I can remember really
enjoying regularly were Cheers, Frasier, All In The Family, Hill Street
Blues, and of course M.A.S.H. And HSB was getting pretty bad in the last
season.
If you want to go back further I fondly recall The Avengers :-).
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 23:16:03 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 09:38:08 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>
>>> I wait for those few (only 1/2 dozen in a _decade_?<sigh>) to come out
>>> on DVD: House, Bones, CSI, NCIS, Justified, Fringe, etc.
>>
>> None of those appeal to me. I guess the last shows I can remember really
>> enjoying regularly were Cheers, Frasier, All In The Family, Hill Street
>> Blues, and of course M.A.S.H. And HSB was getting pretty bad in the last
>> season.
>
> Wow, MASH was the only one of those I watched regularly, Archie
> occasionally.
Fred of Sanford and Son also had some sort of appeal (to me). I went to
see him in Las Vegas, but he wasn't the same innocent guy I had seen on
tv. Still, no regrets about seeing his act.
Bill
>
>
>> If you want to go back further I fondly recall The Avengers :-).
>
> Ditto, but especially Emma Peel.
>
> --
> Win first, Fight later.
>
> --martial principle of the Samurai
Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jul 2011 13:06:02 -0400, Bill<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Larry Jaques wrote:
>>> On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 23:16:03 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 09:38:08 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I wait for those few (only 1/2 dozen in a _decade_?<sigh>) to come out
>>>>> on DVD: House, Bones, CSI, NCIS, Justified, Fringe, etc.
>>>>
>>>> None of those appeal to me. I guess the last shows I can remember really
>>>> enjoying regularly were Cheers, Frasier, All In The Family, Hill Street
>>>> Blues, and of course M.A.S.H. And HSB was getting pretty bad in the last
>>>> season.
>>>
>>> Wow, MASH was the only one of those I watched regularly, Archie
>>> occasionally.
>
> I just realized that I watched HSB, too. Veronica Hamel was a hottie.
> I was thinking that was the Simpsons-like cartoon with rednecks, um,
> King of the Hill. (had to look it up) I've never watched that one.
>
>
>> Fred of Sanford and Son also had some sort of appeal (to me). I went to
>> see him in Las Vegas, but he wasn't the same innocent guy I had seen on
>> tv. Still, no regrets about seeing his act.
>
> Har! Redd Fox was -=never=- an innocent, ever.<snort> I think the F
> word was invented for him. He was a -very- funny guy, but only if
> you're OK with cursing.
Yeah, he was funny. I'm sure that's the F word you were thinking of! ;)
>
> --
> Fear not those who argue but those who dodge.
> -- Marie Ebner von Eschenbach
Bill wrote:
> Larry Jaques wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Jul 2011 13:06:02 -0400, Bill<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Larry Jaques wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 23:16:03 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 09:38:08 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I wait for those few (only 1/2 dozen in a _decade_?<sigh>) to come
>>>>>> out
>>>>>> on DVD: House, Bones, CSI, NCIS, Justified, Fringe, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> None of those appeal to me. I guess the last shows I can remember
>>>>> really
>>>>> enjoying regularly were Cheers, Frasier, All In The Family, Hill
>>>>> Street
>>>>> Blues, and of course M.A.S.H. And HSB was getting pretty bad in the
>>>>> last
>>>>> season.
>>>>
>>>> Wow, MASH was the only one of those I watched regularly, Archie
>>>> occasionally.
>>
>> I just realized that I watched HSB, too. Veronica Hamel was a hottie.
>> I was thinking that was the Simpsons-like cartoon with rednecks, um,
>> King of the Hill. (had to look it up) I've never watched that one.
>>
>>
>>> Fred of Sanford and Son also had some sort of appeal (to me). I went to
>>> see him in Las Vegas, but he wasn't the same innocent guy I had seen on
>>> tv. Still, no regrets about seeing his act.
>>
>> Har! Redd Fox was -=never=- an innocent, ever.<snort> I think the F
>> word was invented for him. He was a -very- funny guy, but only if
>> you're OK with cursing.
>
> Yeah, he was funny. I'm sure that's the F word you were thinking of! ;)
By the way, Redd spelt it F-o-x-x-. (period!) : )
>
>>
>> --
>> Fear not those who argue but those who dodge.
>> -- Marie Ebner von Eschenbach
>
On Tue, 12 Jul 2011 15:45:36 -0600, Dave Balderstone wrote:
>> >> Ditto, but especially Emma Peel.
>> >
>> >That's Mrs. Peel to you, C-less.
>>
>> Wouldn't have stopped me, Baldy. Wouldn't have stopped me.
>
> Me neither... She was HOT.
She was hotter at 50 than most women at 25 :-).
BTW, a few weeks ago I found a set of 36 VHS tapes of Avengers episodes
from '63 thru '67. 13 episodes per year. Commercially reproduced, not
homegrown copies. Cost me $7. We're currently converting them all to
DVD.
Does that deserve a "you suck"?
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 17:35:29 -0500, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 7/10/2011 5:14 PM, Robatoy wrote:
>>> http://tinyurl.com/5tex8ts
>>
>> Commercial TV quickly morphed into a mindless wasteland, now that you
>> pay for the privilege, it's a toxic dump.
>
> I'm much happier since I dumped DISH TV 5 years ago. I now watch only
> the movies I like, with absolutely no commercials, and I save $50 a
> month doing so. Netflix is cool. TV sucks the big one.
>
> Now, when I see a TV set on, I walk away. I couldn't stand what it
> had become 5 years ago, but today it's 200% worse, at minimum. Feh!
>
> I'd rather be uninformed than "full-frontal-attack misinformed", TYVM.
Since our air-conditioner isn't keeping up with the heat Mother Nature
is dispensing, it occurred to me to take a trip to Frys Electronics to
see about upgrading our 16 year old Magnavox tv.
Adding to what I learned while I was having some auto work done the
other day: Evidently LED is now a winner over LCD and units connected to
the Internet are on the way to becoming the norm (I was told Samsung was
pushing by not introducing any other sort). Of course, from what I saw
(keeps me on-topic) those sets are not ready for prime time, having
merely a cell-phone type interface. I still don't have or want a cell
phone.
Of course, then there is audio. I saw some sound bars (they are bigger
than I remember them). That may be the ticket. Course figuring out a
good alternative to Comcast's "triple play" would be attractive too.
Frys had a pile of MagicJack's (USB phone device) for $40 (+$19.95/yr).
That may be a good start if it works!
I reminded myself that I don't even like tv that much and came home
unscathed--but cooler, and with a slab of ribs. : )
Anyone who can't tell the difference between a "need" and a "want" is at
a big disadvantage these days.
At the end of the day I better appreciate the longevity of i'rn, the
peace that I find in good books, and visiting with you folks here.
Bill
On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 05:42:55 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Jul 20, 8:30 am, Larry Jaques <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 06:45:53 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On 7/19/2011 11:06 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>> >> The full LED arrays compare to the energy inefficiency of the plamas.
>> >> Walk by either one from a couple feet and you can feel the heat.
>>
>> >I think you have your terminology mixed up. I personally have the old
>> >style LCD and the newer LED LCD screens. The LED LCD screen produces
>> >little to no heat after being on all day long and the lowest energy
>> >consumption of any regular LCD screen.
>>
>> You obviously bought an edgelit model. There are two types.http://hometheater.about.com/od/televisions/qt/ledlcdtvfacts.htm
>> I put my hand on a few sets while we were looking at TVs and the LCD
>> and edgelit LED LCD sets were barely over room temps. The full array
>> was close to the heat of the plasmas, and you could feel it on a bare
>> arm from a couple feet away while walking by. Shying away from the
>> heat (knowing it would cost her precious money) I didn't notice the
>> brand or model numbers. It was in Sears, though (against my advice not
>> to shop there.)
>>
>Musta been a mislabelled plasma.
I don't think so. The plasmas all have glass (glaring crap) screens
and I believe this one had more of a matte screen.
>The ones I have seen are cool as a cucumber.
But were they edgelit or full array? That's key. I'm thinking they
were all edgelit.
>My 46" plasma throws a fair bit of warmth, but what a
>picture. Especially now that I have it powered through a variac with
>conditioning. The 46 had a better picture than the 50 right next to it
>as it has the same amount of pixels but more densely packed.
Just "a fair bit", eh? Was there lots of a/c noise showing up as
artifacts onscreen before the variac/line conditioner?
>Oh, and C-less, you don't know your bananas from your elbow.
I know mine, but not others. I leave that to you banana barons, sir.
--
Always bear in mind that your own resolution to
succeed is more important than any one thing.
-- Abraham Lincoln
On Jul 19, 10:32=A0pm, Steve <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2011-07-17 20:18:07 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> said:
>
> > Evidently LED is now a winner over LCD and units connected to the
> > Internet are on the way to becoming the norm (I was told Samsung was
> > pushing by not introducing any other sort). Of course, from what I saw
> > (keeps me on-topic) those sets are not ready for prime time, having
> > merely a cell-phone type interface. =A0I still don't have or want a cel=
l
> > phone.
>
> Bet they did not point out that the huge LED array generates
> considerable heat. Adds to your air conditioning bill!
No they don't. Usually a quarter of similar size plasma, and less than
a standard LCD with fluorescent backlight.
On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 23:20:06 +0100, Stuart <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
> m II <[email protected]> wrote:
>> LEDs are current devices. Something has to absorb the excess voltage
>> when you control the current supply to it.
>
>Nothing, absolutely nothing, in the set runs on 120V. An efficient
>switching regulator reduces your 120V, or 240V if you live elsewhere in
>the world, down to more useful voltages. Modern LED drivers also use
>switch mode technology to increase efficiency and reduce energy loss
>through heat to a minimum.
The switching regulator is limiting the current. It's really an "electronic
ballast".
On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 18:02:01 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Jul 21, 7:23 pm, "[email protected]"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 16:14:03 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Jul 21, 6:29 pm, "[email protected]"
>> ><[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 15:19:59 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy <[email protected]>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >On Jul 21, 12:19 am, "[email protected]"
>> >> ><[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >> On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 18:15:00 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy <[email protected]>
>> >> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >On Jul 20, 9:10 pm, "[email protected]"
>> >> >> ><[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >> >> On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 23:20:06 +0100, Stuart <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >In article <[email protected]>,
>> >> >> >> > m II <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> LEDs are current devices. Something has to absorb the excess voltage
>> >> >> >> >> when you control the current supply to it.
>>
>> >> >> >> >Nothing, absolutely nothing, in the set runs on 120V. An efficient
>> >> >> >> >switching regulator reduces your 120V, or 240V if you live elsewhere in
>> >> >> >> >the world, down to more useful voltages. Modern LED drivers also use
>> >> >> >> >switch mode technology to increase efficiency and reduce energy loss
>> >> >> >> >through heat to a minimum.
>>
>> >> >> >> The switching regulator is limiting the current. It's really an "electronic
>> >> >> >> ballast".
>>
>> >> >> >load=ballast. Check.
>>
>> >> >> No, current_limiting_device == ballast. It does the same thing as an
>> >> >> electronic ballast in a fluorescent fixture.
>>
>> >> >Ballast = inductor (half a transformer... keeping it simple,
>> >> >remember?)
>>
>> >> That is an example of a ballast, sure. That isn't the definition of a
>> >> ballast, though.
>>
>> >> >NO LED circuit that I have ever seen used in backlit advertising signs
>> >> >has ever included a 'ballast' in the conventional sense. Choppers and
>> >> >resistors and diodes.... I know, all new technology to you... but it
>> >> >is not too late to learn.
>>
>> >> You couldn't be more wrong. That series resistor *is* a ballast resistor. By
>> >> "chopper", I assume you mean switching regulator. If it's used to ballast an
>> >> LED, it's a ballast. ;-)
>>
>> >> In case you hadn't forgotten, I'm a electronics design engineer, by day.
>>
>> >> >Now, if you want to burrow into a quagmire of semantics, knock
>> >> >yourself out.
>>
>> >> Nope. It's common usage.
>>
>> >> >By your logic, if a ship drags an anchor it is 'ballast' as opposed to
>> >> >what 'ballast' really is.
>>
>> >> Perhaps you're a sailor but I'm not claiming to be. I *am* an engineer,
>> >> though. The widget in series with a lamp to limit current, whatever it may
>> >> be, is called a "ballast". If it's a resistor, it's even called a "ballast
>> >> resistor".
>>
>> >I have a 1 watt LED and I would like you to give me the part number
>> >for a 'ballast' for it.
>>
>> No problem. Give me the part number, the voltage would you like to operate
>> from, and how much current you want through it and I'll give you the part
>> number of a ballast for it.
>
>So now you're talking a power supply?
I can give you a part number for that too, but you asked for the part number
of a ballast for your hypothetical LED. I can't give you that if I don't know
its operating conditions.
In article
<b34029e6-0776-4922-94c9-7c12f833728e@m10g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> End of discussion.
Very sensible, I've seen the way this guy behaves on other groups.
--
Stuart Winsor
Midland RISC OS show - Sat July 9th 2011
http://mug.riscos.org/show11/MUGshow.html
On Jul 21, 9:29=A0pm, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 18:02:01 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy <[email protected]=
m>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Jul 21, 7:23=A0pm, "[email protected]"
> ><[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 16:14:03 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy <counterfit...@gmail=
.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On Jul 21, 6:29 pm, "[email protected]"
> >> ><[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 15:19:59 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy <counterfit...@gm=
ail.com>
> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> >On Jul 21, 12:19 am, "[email protected]"
> >> >> ><[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> >> On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 18:15:00 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy <counterfit...=
@gmail.com>
> >> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >On Jul 20, 9:10 pm, "[email protected]"
> >> >> >> ><[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 23:20:06 +0100, Stuart <[email protected]=
o.uk> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >In article <[email protected]>,
> >> >> >> >> > m II <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> LEDs are current devices. Something has to absorb the exce=
ss voltage
> >> >> >> >> >> when you control the current supply to it.
>
> >> >> >> >> >Nothing, absolutely nothing, in the set runs on 120V. An eff=
icient
> >> >> >> >> >switching regulator reduces your 120V, or 240V if you live e=
lsewhere in
> >> >> >> >> >the world, down to more useful voltages. Modern LED drivers =
also use
> >> >> >> >> >switch mode technology to increase efficiency and reduce ene=
rgy loss
> >> >> >> >> >through heat to a minimum.
>
> >> >> >> >> The switching regulator is limiting the current. It's really =
an "electronic
> >> >> >> >> ballast".
>
> >> >> >> >load=3Dballast. Check.
>
> >> >> >> No, current_limiting_device =3D=3D ballast. It does the same thi=
ng as an
> >> >> >> electronic ballast in a fluorescent fixture.
>
> >> >> >Ballast =3D inductor (half a transformer... keeping it simple,
> >> >> >remember?)
>
> >> >> That is an example of a ballast, sure. That isn't the definition of=
a
> >> >> ballast, though.
>
> >> >> >NO LED circuit that I have ever seen used in backlit advertising s=
igns
> >> >> >has ever included a 'ballast' in the conventional sense. Choppers =
and
> >> >> >resistors and diodes.... I know, all new technology to you... but =
it
> >> >> >is not too late to learn.
>
> >> >> You couldn't be more wrong. That series resistor *is* a ballast res=
istor. By
> >> >> "chopper", I assume you mean switching regulator. If it's used to b=
allast an
> >> >> LED, it's a ballast. ;-)
>
> >> >> In case you hadn't forgotten, I'm a electronics design engineer, by=
day.
>
> >> >> >Now, if you want to burrow into a quagmire of semantics, knock
> >> >> >yourself out.
>
> >> >> Nope. It's common usage.
>
> >> >> >By your logic, if a ship drags an anchor it is 'ballast' as oppose=
d to
> >> >> >what 'ballast' really is.
>
> >> >> Perhaps you're a sailor but I'm not claiming to be. I *am* an engin=
eer,
> >> >> though. The widget in series with a lamp to limit current, whatever=
it may
> >> >> be, is called a "ballast". If it's a resistor, it's even called a "=
ballast
> >> >> resistor".
>
> >> >I have a 1 watt LED and I would like you to give me the part number
> >> >for a 'ballast' for it.
>
> >> No problem. =A0Give me the part number, the voltage would you like to =
operate
> >> from, and how much current you want through it and I'll give you the p=
art
> >> number of a ballast for it.
>
> >So now you're talking a power supply?
>
> I can give you a part number for that too, but you asked for the part num=
ber
> of a ballast for your hypothetical LED. =A0I can't give you that if I don=
't know
> its operating conditions.
Find me a ballast for LED lighting....sayyyy from these guys:
http://ace-ballast.com/Pages/Home.html
They have them for Fluorescents, and HID, but they use simple power
supplies or drivers as they often call them to power LED's. So you're
playing semantic ping-pong as per usual.
Maybe that engineering degree is a bit long-in-the-tooth and an update
is required.
In commercial lighting, being it signs or for spaces, the power
supplies for LED systems are never referred to as ballasts.
Now if there is a resistor in that LED power supply that has a
function (although not as an inductor) which acts similar to a
ballast, one point for the semantics. End of discussion.
On 27 Jul 2011 13:45:04 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> So, can your -TV- get viruses from dem poan sites now?
>
>Mine is immune. Yours??
2002 Panasonic with 27" flat tube hooked only to a DVD player through
the surround receiver? I'll not likely need immunity with no feed. ;)
--
Live in the sunshine, swim the sea, drink the wild air
-- Ralph Waldo Emerson
On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 08:25:45 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Jul 20, 10:58 am, "m II" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> LEDs are current devices. Something has to absorb the excess voltage when
>> you control the current supply to it.
>>
>> Basic woodworking101.
>>
>> ----------------"Robatoy" wrote in message
>>
>> news:75dff06b-20e1-4a24-9f6d-06b041eb9761@m18g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
>> Balast? On LED's?
>
>LED's are diodes. To power it from a 120vac source, one needs a small
>200volt rated cap, a 1K resistor and another LED or diode. Period. No
>farking ballasts. The cap smooths out the wave, the resistor stops the
>LED from over voltage.
Your capacitor (or resistor, switching current source, whatever) is the
ballast. Something has to limit the current. Yes, it's called a "ballast".
;-)
On Jul 20, 9:10=A0pm, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 23:20:06 +0100, Stuart <[email protected]> wrote:
> >In article <[email protected]>,
> > =A0 m II <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> LEDs are current devices. Something has to absorb the excess voltage
> >> when you control the current supply to it.
>
> >Nothing, absolutely nothing, in the set runs on 120V. An efficient
> >switching regulator reduces your 120V, or 240V if you live elsewhere in
> >the world, down to more useful voltages. Modern LED drivers also use
> >switch mode technology to increase efficiency and reduce energy loss
> >through heat to a minimum.
>
> The switching regulator is limiting the current. =A0It's really an "elect=
ronic
> ballast".
load=3Dballast. Check.
On Jul 20, 6:20=A0pm, Stuart <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> =A0 =A0m II <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > LEDs are current devices. Something has to absorb the excess voltage
> > when you control the current supply to it.
>
> Nothing, absolutely nothing, in the set runs on 120V. An efficient
> switching regulator reduces your 120V, or 240V if you live elsewhere in
> the world, down to more useful voltages. Modern LED drivers also use
> switch mode technology to increase efficiency and reduce energy loss
> through heat to a minimum.
>
Well, I know that, you know that.....
On Jul 26, 2:41=A0pm, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 7/26/2011 10:43 AM, Robatoy wrote:
>
> > On Jul 26, 1:49 am, Jack Stein<[email protected]> =A0wrote:
> >> With comcast, you need a HD box to get HD. =A0That costs extra, and an=
HD
> >> TV w/o the extra HD box sucks worse than my old tube TV. Personally, T=
V
> >> is a wasteland, but, if you have a VCR so you can record the things yo=
u
> >> are interested in, and then watch at your leisure skipping commercials=
,
> >> it's not too bad.
> > What's a VCR?
>
> DVR, thanks for caring...
>
I wasn't correcting you, and I truly don't care.
Your sense of humour needs a severe overhaul.
On Jul 26, 1:49=A0am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 7/20/2011 12:32 AM, Bill wrote:
>
> > Are those the ones they label "LED-LCD"? It seems the back lit LEDs are
> > getting a lot of credit for a better picture through
> > "micro-dimming". As a CRT owner, you can be sure I'm a techno-snob--or
> > that I don't watch much tv..lol. The last time I bought a tv the
> > Internet was barely in its infancy! :) After a bit of window-shopping,
> > the Samsung Smart TV more or less rose to the top, but I feel like even
> > its Internet-related features are not "ready for prime time".
>
> I have both LCD and LED TV's. =A0The LCD was breath taking compared to my
> old tube TV. =A0My wife got a Samsung LED with wireless internet for Xmas
> from the kids. =A0The LED picture is awesome compared to the LCD. =A0The
> wireless internet hookup works but is not what you would think. =A0You ca=
n
> only do a few limited things, like YouTube, stock quotes, Netflix,
> weather. =A0It is very limited. =A0I was not able to network my PC or the
> internet to the wireless hookup. =A0It has a really nice jpg picture
> viewer that works off a thumb drive, and my digital photos are awesome
> on the thing. I wanted to hook my PC wirelessly to view the photos but
> nope, couldn't get it to work.
>
> With comcast, you need a HD box to get HD. =A0That costs extra, and an HD
> TV w/o the extra HD box sucks worse than my old tube TV. Personally, TV
> is a wasteland, but, if you have a VCR so you can record the things you
> are interested in, and then watch at your leisure skipping commercials,
> it's not too bad.
>
What's a VCR?
.
.
.
.
*smirk*
On Jul 20, 12:06=A0am, Larry Jaques <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jul 2011 20:04:58 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
>
>
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On Jul 19, 10:32=A0pm, Steve <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On 2011-07-17 20:18:07 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> said:
>
> >> > Evidently LED is now a winner over LCD and units connected to the
> >> > Internet are on the way to becoming the norm (I was told Samsung was
> >> > pushing by not introducing any other sort). Of course, from what I s=
aw
> >> > (keeps me on-topic) those sets are not ready for prime time, having
> >> > merely a cell-phone type interface. =A0I still don't have or want a =
cell
> >> > phone.
>
> >> Bet they did not point out that the huge LED array generates
> >> considerable heat. Adds to your air conditioning bill!
>
> >No they don't. Usually a quarter of similar size plasma, and less than
> >a standard LCD with fluorescent backlight.
>
> The full LED arrays compare to the energy inefficiency of the plamas.
> Walk by either one from a couple feet and you can feel the heat.
>
*buzzerrrr*
CNET has charts.. on average (46") plasma 400watts, LCD 120watts,
LEDLCD 105 watts, edgelit banana 3 watts
>
> The 37" Vizio I helped my neighbor choose was LCD and takes 68 Watts.
> She's thrilled, moving up from a 26 year old 19" tube type.
>
> --
> Progress is the product of human agency. Things get better because we
> make them better. Things go wrong when we get too comfortable, when we
> fail to take risks or seize opportunities.
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0-- Susan Rice
On 2011-07-17 20:18:07 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> said:
> Evidently LED is now a winner over LCD and units connected to the
> Internet are on the way to becoming the norm (I was told Samsung was
> pushing by not introducing any other sort). Of course, from what I saw
> (keeps me on-topic) those sets are not ready for prime time, having
> merely a cell-phone type interface. I still don't have or want a cell
> phone.
Bet they did not point out that the huge LED array generates
considerable heat. Adds to your air conditioning bill!
On Jul 27, 10:02=A0am, Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 04:51:08 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
>
> >I have one ethernet cable going to my NetGear router/transmitter.
> >Period.
> >The rest is now WiFi. 2 iMacs, a G4 for email and browsing, an Apple
> >Powerbook, and 2 PC's, one of which is a laptop, a laser printer and
> >an AppleTV going to my plasma via HDMI. Flawless performance.
>
> What? No tablet or Ipad? Personally, I'm waiting for a Xoom 3g/4g to
> come out in Canada and then I'll be prepared to buy.
I'm looking closely at webOS on the Samsung tablet.... so nope, no
iPad yet. I can't consolidate it in my daily affairs. Stuff like
appointments, contacts, are all handled just nicely by my BB.
On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 04:51:08 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
>I have one ethernet cable going to my NetGear router/transmitter.
>Period.
>The rest is now WiFi. 2 iMacs, a G4 for email and browsing, an Apple
>Powerbook, and 2 PC's, one of which is a laptop, a laser printer and
>an AppleTV going to my plasma via HDMI. Flawless performance.
What? No tablet or Ipad? Personally, I'm waiting for a Xoom 3g/4g to
come out in Canada and then I'll be prepared to buy.
Bill <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
> Yes, I read alot of reviews this week. That shifted my thinking from
> the Samsung "7000" series (w/wi-fi, web browser, 240Hz) to the Samsung
> "6000" series (ethernet connection but no wi-fi, 120 hz, no web
> browser). I'm not enthused by 3D. This shift knocks about 1/3 off of
> the price, and I can add some of the extra features as "add ons" when
> they are more "ready for prime time". Current web browsers on TV appear
> to be a step back to dialup access (actually much worse than that)!
>
*snip*
If you want internet access on the TV, get one with a PC connector (It's a
15-pin D-style connector) or a PC with HDMI output. TVs are getting to be
fancy monitors, so you won't get the fuzziness of picture like you would
even 5 years ago.
You can get internet access on the Wii, but it's really not that great.
Puckdropper
Bill <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
> Thank you for all of your comments! Very helpful. My wife has a Wii
> (a gift). I didn't realize it had wi-fi. Will it support browsing?
It will. Connect the WiFi and download the software update. Then,
you'll be able to access the Wii Shop channel. After that, you can
download the web browser (which is a version of Opera).
It seems just about every time I want to use the Wii Shop channel, I have
to download a software update. As a result, I rarely go there.
> I just checked my PC's GPU manual and I have a HDMI output and didn't
> even know it. But since the TV and PC reside in separate rooms, and
> the PC is wired down, I would only be willing to move it for an
> occasion so special that it is unlikely to happen. I think I would
> rather just carry USB memory back and forth for the sake of content.
A decent PC with HDMI output can be had for a couple hundred dollars, so
setting up a media PC isn't that expensive. You could even add a capture
card to use the PC as a DVR.
> Thanks again for helping me catch up with what is going on with the
> technology.
>
> Bill
>
Puckdropper
Han <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
>
> The Verizon Wifi router that I have is indeed long in the tooth. It
> often requires more than 1 or 2 attempts to log on to that f'ing
> radio. I will remodel the LAN any time soon now <grin>. Then I have
> to find out whether to get another router and if so which one. At the
> moment the WR1424 or whatever the VZ router is called is only 10/100,
> as are most all other things on the LAN. Need to find out whether I
> should rewire for gigabit LAN ...
>
> This'll be a wintertime project.
>
If you replace the router with a gigabit router, you might be able to
take advantage of gigabit immediately. Most cables for some time now
have been cat 5e, which supports gigabit speeds. (I may not be getting
1000 mbs on my older cables, but it's much faster than 100.)
You won't see faster internet, but computer-to-computer transfers will be
much faster.
Puckdropper
Han <[email protected]> wrote in news:Xns9F2FB1F5D3915ikkezelf@
207.246.207.166:
> Puckdropper <puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote in
> news:[email protected]
>>
>> If you replace the router with a gigabit router, you might be able to
>> take advantage of gigabit immediately. Most cables for some time now
>> have been cat 5e, which supports gigabit speeds. (I may not be
>> getting 1000 mbs on my older cables, but it's much faster than 100.)
>>
>> You won't see faster internet, but computer-to-computer transfers will
>> be much faster.
>>
>> Puckdropper
>
> Thanks!!
> Do you have any advice as to a good cost-effective gigabit router??
>
I'd check the various sales sites that have reviews and look for at least
4 stars with lots of reviews. As long as you don't want to do anything
fancy like internal DNS, most gigabit routers will work for you. (If you
don't know what that is, you probably don't need it.)
If you want wireless, make sure it supports 802.11b, 802.11g, and 802.11n
for maximum compatibility.
You can also buy a gigabit switch, connect it to the router and then
connect all your computers to the switch. It won't save you much money,
but should just plug in and work.
Puckdropper
"Han" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> Thanks!!
> Do you have any advice as to a good cost-effective gigabit router??
>
I got confused there for a minute. Since this is a WOODWORKING newsgroup, I
thought you were talking about some kinda super digital, cnc inspired,
router. Then I looked at the previous messages, it became apparent I was
mistaken.
Carry on.
In article <[email protected]>,
m II <[email protected]> wrote:
> LEDs are current devices. Something has to absorb the excess voltage
> when you control the current supply to it.
Nothing, absolutely nothing, in the set runs on 120V. An efficient
switching regulator reduces your 120V, or 240V if you live elsewhere in
the world, down to more useful voltages. Modern LED drivers also use
switch mode technology to increase efficiency and reduce energy loss
through heat to a minimum.
--
Stuart Winsor
Midland RISC OS show - Sat July 9th 2011
http://mug.riscos.org/show11/MUGshow.html
On Jul 20, 10:58=A0am, "m II" <[email protected]> wrote:
> LEDs are current devices. Something has to absorb the excess voltage when
> you control the current supply to it.
>
> Basic woodworking101.
>
> ----------------"Robatoy" =A0wrote in message
>
> news:75dff06b-20e1-4a24-9f6d-06b041eb9761@m18g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
> Balast? On LED's?
LED's are diodes. To power it from a 120vac source, one needs a small
200volt rated cap, a 1K resistor and another LED or diode. Period. No
farking ballasts. The cap smooths out the wave, the resistor stops the
LED from over voltage.
On Jul 20, 9:55=A0am, "m II" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Baloney! White LEDs are not much more efficient than an incandescent bulb=
!
> White LEDs are not as efficient as the old fluorescent bulbs used in
> previous LCD sets. Manufacturer`s specs are with a bare element and the c=
ase
> and ballasts are never included in the specs.
>
> Any LED TV gets just as warm as the fluor sets but not nearly as warm as =
a
> plasma. Check you specs carefully and notice how it always claims ``after
> calibration`` which means only visible when dark.
>
> -----------------"Leon" =A0wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> Nope, back lit. =A0Relatively inexpensive. =A0As thick or thicker than th=
e
> other regular LCD screens in my house. =A0And no noticeable heat.
>
> =A0 There are two types.
>
>
>
> >http://hometheater.about.com/od/televisions/qt/ledlcdtvfacts.htm
> > I put my hand on a few sets while we were looking at TVs and the LCD
> > and edgelit LED LCD sets were barely over room temps. The full array
> > was close to the heat of the plasmas, and you could feel it on a bare
> > arm from a couple feet away while walking by. Shying away from the
> > heat (knowing it would cost her precious money) I didn't notice the
> > brand or model numbers. It was in Sears, though (against my advice not
> > to shop there.)
Balast? On LED's?
On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 16:14:03 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Jul 21, 6:29 pm, "[email protected]"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 15:19:59 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Jul 21, 12:19 am, "[email protected]"
>> ><[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 18:15:00 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy <[email protected]>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >On Jul 20, 9:10 pm, "[email protected]"
>> >> ><[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >> On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 23:20:06 +0100, Stuart <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >> >In article <[email protected]>,
>> >> >> > m II <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >> >> LEDs are current devices. Something has to absorb the excess voltage
>> >> >> >> when you control the current supply to it.
>>
>> >> >> >Nothing, absolutely nothing, in the set runs on 120V. An efficient
>> >> >> >switching regulator reduces your 120V, or 240V if you live elsewhere in
>> >> >> >the world, down to more useful voltages. Modern LED drivers also use
>> >> >> >switch mode technology to increase efficiency and reduce energy loss
>> >> >> >through heat to a minimum.
>>
>> >> >> The switching regulator is limiting the current. It's really an "electronic
>> >> >> ballast".
>>
>> >> >load=ballast. Check.
>>
>> >> No, current_limiting_device == ballast. It does the same thing as an
>> >> electronic ballast in a fluorescent fixture.
>>
>> >Ballast = inductor (half a transformer... keeping it simple,
>> >remember?)
>>
>> That is an example of a ballast, sure. That isn't the definition of a
>> ballast, though.
>>
>> >NO LED circuit that I have ever seen used in backlit advertising signs
>> >has ever included a 'ballast' in the conventional sense. Choppers and
>> >resistors and diodes.... I know, all new technology to you... but it
>> >is not too late to learn.
>>
>> You couldn't be more wrong. That series resistor *is* a ballast resistor. By
>> "chopper", I assume you mean switching regulator. If it's used to ballast an
>> LED, it's a ballast. ;-)
>>
>> In case you hadn't forgotten, I'm a electronics design engineer, by day.
>>
>> >Now, if you want to burrow into a quagmire of semantics, knock
>> >yourself out.
>>
>> Nope. It's common usage.
>>
>> >By your logic, if a ship drags an anchor it is 'ballast' as opposed to
>> >what 'ballast' really is.
>>
>> Perhaps you're a sailor but I'm not claiming to be. I *am* an engineer,
>> though. The widget in series with a lamp to limit current, whatever it may
>> be, is called a "ballast". If it's a resistor, it's even called a "ballast
>> resistor".
>
>I have a 1 watt LED and I would like you to give me the part number
>for a 'ballast' for it.
No problem. Give me the part number, the voltage would you like to operate
from, and how much current you want through it and I'll give you the part
number of a ballast for it.
On Jul 21, 7:23=A0pm, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 16:14:03 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy <[email protected]=
m>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Jul 21, 6:29 pm, "[email protected]"
> ><[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 15:19:59 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy <counterfit...@gmail=
.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On Jul 21, 12:19 am, "[email protected]"
> >> ><[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 18:15:00 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy <counterfit...@gm=
ail.com>
> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> >On Jul 20, 9:10 pm, "[email protected]"
> >> >> ><[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> >> On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 23:20:06 +0100, Stuart <[email protected]=
k> wrote:
> >> >> >> >In article <[email protected]>,
> >> >> >> > m II <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> LEDs are current devices. Something has to absorb the excess =
voltage
> >> >> >> >> when you control the current supply to it.
>
> >> >> >> >Nothing, absolutely nothing, in the set runs on 120V. An effici=
ent
> >> >> >> >switching regulator reduces your 120V, or 240V if you live else=
where in
> >> >> >> >the world, down to more useful voltages. Modern LED drivers als=
o use
> >> >> >> >switch mode technology to increase efficiency and reduce energy=
loss
> >> >> >> >through heat to a minimum.
>
> >> >> >> The switching regulator is limiting the current. It's really an =
"electronic
> >> >> >> ballast".
>
> >> >> >load=3Dballast. Check.
>
> >> >> No, current_limiting_device =3D=3D ballast. It does the same thing =
as an
> >> >> electronic ballast in a fluorescent fixture.
>
> >> >Ballast =3D inductor (half a transformer... keeping it simple,
> >> >remember?)
>
> >> That is an example of a ballast, sure. That isn't the definition of a
> >> ballast, though.
>
> >> >NO LED circuit that I have ever seen used in backlit advertising sign=
s
> >> >has ever included a 'ballast' in the conventional sense. Choppers and
> >> >resistors and diodes.... I know, all new technology to you... but it
> >> >is not too late to learn.
>
> >> You couldn't be more wrong. That series resistor *is* a ballast resist=
or. By
> >> "chopper", I assume you mean switching regulator. If it's used to ball=
ast an
> >> LED, it's a ballast. ;-)
>
> >> In case you hadn't forgotten, I'm a electronics design engineer, by da=
y.
>
> >> >Now, if you want to burrow into a quagmire of semantics, knock
> >> >yourself out.
>
> >> Nope. It's common usage.
>
> >> >By your logic, if a ship drags an anchor it is 'ballast' as opposed t=
o
> >> >what 'ballast' really is.
>
> >> Perhaps you're a sailor but I'm not claiming to be. I *am* an engineer=
,
> >> though. The widget in series with a lamp to limit current, whatever it=
may
> >> be, is called a "ballast". If it's a resistor, it's even called a "bal=
last
> >> resistor".
>
> >I have a 1 watt LED and I would like you to give me the part number
> >for a 'ballast' for it.
>
> No problem. =A0Give me the part number, the voltage would you like to ope=
rate
> from, and how much current you want through it and I'll give you the part
> number of a ballast for it.
So now you're talking a power supply?
On Jul 26, 11:41=A0pm, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
> On 7/26/2011 8:52 PM, Han wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Puckdropper<puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com> =A0wrote in
> >news:[email protected]:
>
> >> Bill<[email protected]> =A0wrote in
> >>news:[email protected]:
>
> >>> Yes, I read alot of reviews this week. That shifted my thinking from
> >>> the Samsung "7000" series (w/wi-fi, web browser, 240Hz) to the
> >>> Samsung "6000" series (ethernet connection but no wi-fi, 120 hz, no
> >>> web browser). I'm not enthused by 3D. =A0This shift knocks about 1/3
> >>> off of the price, and I can add some of the extra features as "add
> >>> ons" when they are more "ready for prime time". Current web browsers
> >>> on TV appear to be a step back to dialup access (actually much worse
> >>> than that)!
>
> >> *snip*
>
> >> If you want internet access on the TV, get one with a PC connector
> >> (It's a 15-pin D-style connector) or a PC with HDMI output. =A0TVs are
> >> getting to be fancy monitors, so you won't get the fuzziness of
> >> picture like you would even 5 years ago.
>
> >> You can get internet access on the Wii, but it's really not that
> >> great.
>
> >> Puckdropper
>
> > I get internet and internet services like Pandora& =A0Netflix via my
> > blueray player, but since I depend on wifi and a Verizon router, it suc=
ks
> > most of the time. =A0I have to get an ethernet cable strung through the
> > basement from one end of the livingroom to the other<sh_t> =A0...
>
> I have a Samsung BluRay that is WiFi and I have pretty good internet
> Pandora, YouTube. =A0You might want to check your internet speed, IIRC 6
> megabits is the least you want for streaming video and or make sure your
> router is not getting long in the tooth. =A0You do not have to have an
> Ethernet connection if every thing else is working correctly.
I have one ethernet cable going to my NetGear router/transmitter.
Period.
The rest is now WiFi. 2 iMacs, a G4 for email and browsing, an Apple
Powerbook, and 2 PC's, one of which is a laptop, a laser printer and
an AppleTV going to my plasma via HDMI. Flawless performance.
On Jul 20, 1:55=A0pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jul 20, 1:13=A0pm, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 7/20/2011 9:03 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>
> > > On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 05:42:55 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
> > > <[email protected]> =A0wrote:
>
> > >> On Jul 20, 8:30 am, Larry Jaques<[email protected]>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>> On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 06:45:53 -0500, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
> > >>> wrote:
>
> > >>>> On 7/19/2011 11:06 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
> > >>>>> The full LED arrays compare to the energy inefficiency of the pla=
mas.
> > >>>>> Walk by either one from a couple feet and you can feel the heat.
>
> > >>>> I think you have your terminology mixed up. =A0I personally have t=
he old
> > >>>> style LCD and the newer LED LCD screens. =A0The LED LCD screen pro=
duces
> > >>>> little to no heat after being on all day long =A0and the lowest en=
ergy
> > >>>> consumption of any regular LCD screen.
>
> > >>> You obviously bought an edgelit model. There are two types.http://h=
ometheater.about.com/od/televisions/qt/ledlcdtvfacts.htm
> > >>> I put my hand on a few sets while we were looking at TVs and the LC=
D
> > >>> and edgelit LED LCD sets were barely over room temps. The full arra=
y
> > >>> was close to the heat of the plasmas, and you could feel it on a ba=
re
> > >>> arm from a couple feet away while walking by. Shying away from the
> > >>> heat (knowing it would cost her precious money) I didn't notice the
> > >>> brand or model numbers. It was in Sears, though (against my advice =
not
> > >>> to shop there.)
>
> > >> Musta been a mislabelled plasma.
>
> > > I don't think so. =A0The plasmas all have glass (glaring crap) screen=
s
> > > and I believe this one had more of a matte screen.
>
> > If you are shopping be careful to not rely on that to differentiate.
> > Many retailers will put a protective coating on the screens on both LCD
> > and plasma screens as an add on to the sale. =A0Those protective films
> > come in glossy and matte finishes. =A0Not saying that is what you saw b=
ut
> > it is often hard to tell a plasma from an LCD. =A0I have found that the
> > sure fire way to tell is lift the corner, plasma sets are still damn
> > heavy sets by comparison.
>
> Toss in disc#1 of BBC's Planets BluRay and I will tell you in a few
> seconds which is which. It is becoming more difficult, mind you as the
> LED/LCD are at 1080p and fast refresh rates (Where are we at now/
> 240Hz?) and they're getting their blacks blacker, but the shadow
> detail and highlight information, PLUS the 600Hz+ refresh of a plasma
> is hard to beat. The downside of plasma, is the power consumption and
> you need a dark, unlit wall behind you. The anti-glare plasma screens
> give up too much detail.
> I would be happy with a 1080pLED/LCD at 120hz or faster, but in the
> meantime, I will enjoy my plasma.
Also... a dead give-away is when the sales guys keep saying things
like: "Those new LED/LCD are getting as good as plasma......."
On Tue, 19 Jul 2011 20:04:58 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Jul 19, 10:32 pm, Steve <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 2011-07-17 20:18:07 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> said:
>>
>> > Evidently LED is now a winner over LCD and units connected to the
>> > Internet are on the way to becoming the norm (I was told Samsung was
>> > pushing by not introducing any other sort). Of course, from what I saw
>> > (keeps me on-topic) those sets are not ready for prime time, having
>> > merely a cell-phone type interface. I still don't have or want a cell
>> > phone.
>>
>> Bet they did not point out that the huge LED array generates
>> considerable heat. Adds to your air conditioning bill!
>
>No they don't. Usually a quarter of similar size plasma, and less than
>a standard LCD with fluorescent backlight.
The full LED arrays compare to the energy inefficiency of the plamas.
Walk by either one from a couple feet and you can feel the heat.
Edgelit LED arrays are much more efficient, taking just a bit more
than the comparably sized LCD. These are the way to go.
The 37" Vizio I helped my neighbor choose was LCD and takes 68 Watts.
She's thrilled, moving up from a 26 year old 19" tube type.
--
Progress is the product of human agency. Things get better because we
make them better. Things go wrong when we get too comfortable, when we
fail to take risks or seize opportunities.
-- Susan Rice
On 27 Jul 2011 21:01:55 GMT, Puckdropper
<puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote:
>You won't see faster internet, but computer-to-computer transfers will be
>much faster.
Which is why I've added a USB3 interface card and an external USB3
drive to my computer. They're an excellent addition when it comes to
backing up my computer.
On Jul 21, 12:19=A0am, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 18:15:00 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy <[email protected]=
m>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Jul 20, 9:10 pm, "[email protected]"
> ><[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 23:20:06 +0100, Stuart <[email protected]> wro=
te:
> >> >In article <[email protected]>,
> >> > m II <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> LEDs are current devices. Something has to absorb the excess voltag=
e
> >> >> when you control the current supply to it.
>
> >> >Nothing, absolutely nothing, in the set runs on 120V. An efficient
> >> >switching regulator reduces your 120V, or 240V if you live elsewhere =
in
> >> >the world, down to more useful voltages. Modern LED drivers also use
> >> >switch mode technology to increase efficiency and reduce energy loss
> >> >through heat to a minimum.
>
> >> The switching regulator is limiting the current. It's really an "elect=
ronic
> >> ballast".
>
> >load=3Dballast. Check.
>
> No, current_limiting_device =3D=3D ballast. =A0It does the same thing as =
an
> electronic ballast in a fluorescent fixture.
Ballast =3D inductor (half a transformer... keeping it simple,
remember?)
NO LED circuit that I have ever seen used in backlit advertising signs
has ever included a 'ballast' in the conventional sense. Choppers and
resistors and diodes.... I know, all new technology to you... but it
is not too late to learn.
Now, if you want to burrow into a quagmire of semantics, knock
yourself out.
By your logic, if a ship drags an anchor it is 'ballast' as opposed to
what 'ballast' really is.
On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 18:15:00 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Jul 20, 9:10 pm, "[email protected]"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 23:20:06 +0100, Stuart <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >In article <[email protected]>,
>> > m II <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> LEDs are current devices. Something has to absorb the excess voltage
>> >> when you control the current supply to it.
>>
>> >Nothing, absolutely nothing, in the set runs on 120V. An efficient
>> >switching regulator reduces your 120V, or 240V if you live elsewhere in
>> >the world, down to more useful voltages. Modern LED drivers also use
>> >switch mode technology to increase efficiency and reduce energy loss
>> >through heat to a minimum.
>>
>> The switching regulator is limiting the current. It's really an "electronic
>> ballast".
>
>load=ballast. Check.
No, current_limiting_device == ballast. It does the same thing as an
electronic ballast in a fluorescent fixture.
[email protected] wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Jul 2011 21:29:08 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Fri, 22 Jul 2011 05:37:33 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Jul 22, 3:53 am, Bob Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> in 1504372 20110722 053408 Robatoy <[email protected]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jul 22, 12:20=A0am, "[email protected]"
>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> No end of discussion at all.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh yes it is.
>>>>>
>>>>> He's right and you're wrong.
>>>>
>>>> Then you go buy a strip of LEDs to light up a sign and order a
>>>> 'ballast' for it.
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_ballast
>>>
>>> First sentence:
>>> "An electrical ballast is a device intended to limit the amount of
>>> current in an electric circuit."
>>>
>>>> You dumb fuck.
>>>
>>> Pig-headed asshole.
>>
>> Geezus - I can carry a thread on for too long, but you guys take it
>> to a new height. Name calling? C'mon - that ain't even right.
>> Unless of course, you use terms like "dickwad", or
>> "shit-for-brains". Those of course, are quite acceptable. So -
>> either step it up to the proper level, or quit being pussys about
>> this...
>
> Jeez, how thing *is* your skin?
Not very - that was intended to be humorous.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Robatoy wrote:
> On Jul 22, 9:29 pm, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Fri, 22 Jul 2011 05:37:33 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Jul 22, 3:53 am, Bob Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> in 1504372 20110722 053408 Robatoy <[email protected]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> On Jul 22, 12:20=A0am, "[email protected]"
>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> No end of discussion at all.
>>
>>>>>> Oh yes it is.
>>
>>>>> He's right and you're wrong.
>>
>>>> Then you go buy a strip of LEDs to light up a sign and order a
>>>> 'ballast' for it.
>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_ballast
>>
>>> First sentence:
>>> "An electrical ballast is a device intended to limit the amount of
>>> current in an electric circuit."
>>
>>>> You dumb fuck.
>>
>>> Pig-headed asshole.
>>
>> Geezus - I can carry a thread on for too long, but you guys take it
>> to a new height. Name calling? C'mon - that ain't even right. Unless
>> of course,
>> you use terms like "dickwad", or "shit-for-brains". Those of course,
>> are quite acceptable. So - either step it up to the proper level, or
>> quit being pussys about this...
>>
>> --
>>
>> -Mike-
>> [email protected]
>
> I didn't call him any names.
Lost track of who did and who didn't. I don't waste a lot of time trying to
follow long posts back to who said what - it was just funny how the thread
evolved.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Sat, 23 Jul 2011 07:10:04 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Jul 2011 21:29:08 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 22 Jul 2011 05:37:33 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Jul 22, 3:53 am, Bob Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> in 1504372 20110722 053408 Robatoy <[email protected]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Jul 22, 12:20=A0am, "[email protected]"
>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No end of discussion at all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oh yes it is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He's right and you're wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then you go buy a strip of LEDs to light up a sign and order a
>>>>> 'ballast' for it.
>>>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_ballast
>>>>
>>>> First sentence:
>>>> "An electrical ballast is a device intended to limit the amount of
>>>> current in an electric circuit."
>>>>
>>>>> You dumb fuck.
>>>>
>>>> Pig-headed asshole.
>>>
>>> Geezus - I can carry a thread on for too long, but you guys take it
>>> to a new height. Name calling? C'mon - that ain't even right.
>>> Unless of course, you use terms like "dickwad", or
>>> "shit-for-brains". Those of course, are quite acceptable. So -
>>> either step it up to the proper level, or quit being pussys about
>>> this...
>>
>> Jeez, how thing *is* your skin?
>
>Not very - that was intended to be humorous.
Something got lost in translation to ASCII. Not unusual.
On Jul 22, 12:36=A0pm, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
> On 7/22/2011 8:05 AM, Robatoy wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 22, 8:37 am, Robatoy<[email protected]> =A0wrote:
> >> On Jul 22, 3:53 am, Bob Martin<[email protected]> =A0wrote:
>
> >>> in 1504372 20110722 053408 Robatoy<[email protected]> =A0wrote:
>
> >>>> On Jul 22, 12:20=3DA0am, "[email protected]"
> >>>> <[email protected]> =A0wrote:
>
> >>>>> No end of discussion at all.
>
> >>>> Oh yes it is.
>
> >>> He's right and you're wrong.
>
> >> Then you go buy a strip of LEDs to light up a sign and order a
> >> 'ballast' for it.
> >> You dumb fuck.
>
> > Ooops, did *I* say that?
>
> Potty mouth!
I'm sowwy.
Bob Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>in 1504372 20110722 053408 Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>>On Jul 22, 12:20=A0am, "[email protected]"
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> No end of discussion at all.
>>
>>Oh yes it is.
>
>He's right and you're wrong.
So you say. Troll.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/b0e49cbb25871e76?dmode=source
george
--
fup2aukset
On Jul 22, 12:20=A0am, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> No end of discussion at all.
Oh yes it is.
On Fri, 22 Jul 2011 20:01:24 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Jul 22, 10:23 pm, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>> Robatoy wrote:
>> > On Jul 22, 9:29 pm, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]>
>> > wrote:
>> >> [email protected] wrote:
>> >>> On Fri, 22 Jul 2011 05:37:33 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
>> >>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >>>> On Jul 22, 3:53 am, Bob Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>>>> in 1504372 20110722 053408 Robatoy <[email protected]>
>> >>>>> wrote:
>>
>> >>>>>> On Jul 22, 12:20=A0am, "[email protected]"
>> >>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >>>>>>> No end of discussion at all.
>>
>> >>>>>> Oh yes it is.
>>
>> >>>>> He's right and you're wrong.
>>
>> >>>> Then you go buy a strip of LEDs to light up a sign and order a
>> >>>> 'ballast' for it.
>>
>> >>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_ballast
>>
>> >>> First sentence:
>> >>> "An electrical ballast is a device intended to limit the amount of
>> >>> current in an electric circuit."
>>
>> >>>> You dumb fuck.
>>
>> >>> Pig-headed asshole.
>>
>> >> Geezus - I can carry a thread on for too long, but you guys take it
>> >> to a new height. Name calling? C'mon - that ain't even right. Unless
>> >> of course,
>> >> you use terms like "dickwad", or "shit-for-brains". Those of course,
>> >> are quite acceptable. So - either step it up to the proper level, or
>> >> quit being pussys about this...
>>
>> >> --
>>
>> >> -Mike-
>> >> [email protected]
>>
>> > I didn't call him any names.
>>
>> Lost track of who did and who didn't. I don't waste a lot of time trying to
>> follow long posts back to who said what - it was just funny how the thread
>> evolved.
>>
>> --
>>
>> -Mike-
>> [email protected]
>
>When I called dumbfuck a dumb fuck, I wasn't talking to twatnoodle.
When you're wrong, you're *REALLY* wrong.
>Being immature sometimes is such fun.
Go fer it.
On Jul 22, 9:29=A0pm, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > On Fri, 22 Jul 2011 05:37:33 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> On Jul 22, 3:53 am, Bob Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>> in 1504372 20110722 053408 Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>>> On Jul 22, 12:20=3DA0am, "[email protected]"
> >>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>>>> No end of discussion at all.
>
> >>>> Oh yes it is.
>
> >>> He's right and you're wrong.
>
> >> Then you go buy a strip of LEDs to light up a sign and order a
> >> 'ballast' for it.
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_ballast
>
> > First sentence:
> > =A0 "An electrical ballast is a device intended to limit the amount of
> > =A0 current in an electric circuit."
>
> >> You dumb fuck.
>
> > Pig-headed asshole.
>
> Geezus - I can carry a thread on for too long, but you guys take it to a =
new
> height. =A0Name calling? =A0C'mon - that ain't even right. =A0Unless of c=
ourse,
> you use terms like "dickwad", or "shit-for-brains". =A0Those of course, a=
re
> quite acceptable. =A0So - either step it up to the proper level, or quit =
being
> pussys about this...
>
> --
>
> -Mike-
> [email protected]
I didn't call him any names.
On Jul 22, 3:53=A0am, Bob Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
> in 1504372 20110722 053408 Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >On Jul 22, 12:20=3DA0am, "[email protected]"
> ><[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> No end of discussion at all.
>
> >Oh yes it is.
>
> He's right and you're wrong.
Then you go buy a strip of LEDs to light up a sign and order a
'ballast' for it.
You dumb fuck.
[email protected] wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Jul 2011 05:37:33 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Jul 22, 3:53 am, Bob Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> in 1504372 20110722 053408 Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Jul 22, 12:20=A0am, "[email protected]"
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> No end of discussion at all.
>>>
>>>> Oh yes it is.
>>>
>>> He's right and you're wrong.
>>
>> Then you go buy a strip of LEDs to light up a sign and order a
>> 'ballast' for it.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_ballast
>
> First sentence:
> "An electrical ballast is a device intended to limit the amount of
> current in an electric circuit."
>
>> You dumb fuck.
>
> Pig-headed asshole.
Geezus - I can carry a thread on for too long, but you guys take it to a new
height. Name calling? C'mon - that ain't even right. Unless of course,
you use terms like "dickwad", or "shit-for-brains". Those of course, are
quite acceptable. So - either step it up to the proper level, or quit being
pussys about this...
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
in 1504372 20110722 053408 Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Jul 22, 12:20=A0am, "[email protected]"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>> No end of discussion at all.
>
>Oh yes it is.
He's right and you're wrong.
Same old, same old, warm and fuzzy responses here.
LEDs and any current operated device needs a ballast to absorb the
difference in voltage in a circuit.
I know you are not just a troll, despite many reports, 'cause you are
Canadian and that would almost be impossible.
Time to admit your lack of electronics terminology and knowledge.
-------------
"Robatoy" wrote in message
news:48e5c8ec-b7fe-4b88-bdb7-f9b723e09b84@j15g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
I'm sowwy.
Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 7/22/2011 8:05 AM, Robatoy wrote:
>> On Jul 22, 8:37 am, Robatoy<[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On Jul 22, 3:53 am, Bob Martin<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> in 1504372 20110722 053408 Robatoy<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> On Jul 22, 12:20=A0am, "[email protected]"
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> No end of discussion at all.
>>>
>>>>> Oh yes it is.
>>>
>>>> He's right and you're wrong.
>>>
>>> Then you go buy a strip of LEDs to light up a sign and order a
>>> 'ballast' for it.
>>> You dumb fuck.
>>
>> Ooops, did *I* say that?
>
> LOL ... tell what you really think, Rob! ;)
Better done in Dutch, I think, blushing already ...
Hope you are doing OK, Rob. Experience and so indicates that the worst
mental hump after these things is about 2 months after ...
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
On 7/22/2011 8:05 AM, Robatoy wrote:
> On Jul 22, 8:37 am, Robatoy<[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Jul 22, 3:53 am, Bob Martin<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> in 1504372 20110722 053408 Robatoy<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Jul 22, 12:20=A0am, "[email protected]"
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>>> No end of discussion at all.
>>
>>>> Oh yes it is.
>>
>>> He's right and you're wrong.
>>
>> Then you go buy a strip of LEDs to light up a sign and order a
>> 'ballast' for it.
>> You dumb fuck.
>
> Ooops, did *I* say that?
Potty mouth!
On Jul 22, 8:37=A0am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jul 22, 3:53=A0am, Bob Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > in 1504372 20110722 053408 Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > >On Jul 22, 12:20=3DA0am, "[email protected]"
> > ><[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > >> No end of discussion at all.
>
> > >Oh yes it is.
>
> > He's right and you're wrong.
>
> Then you go buy a strip of LEDs to light up a sign and order a
> 'ballast' for it.
> You dumb fuck.
Ooops, did *I* say that?
On Jul 22, 10:23=A0pm, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > On Jul 22, 9:29 pm, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >> [email protected] wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 22 Jul 2011 05:37:33 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
> >>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>>> On Jul 22, 3:53 am, Bob Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>> in 1504372 20110722 053408 Robatoy <[email protected]>
> >>>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> On Jul 22, 12:20=3DA0am, "[email protected]"
> >>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> No end of discussion at all.
>
> >>>>>> Oh yes it is.
>
> >>>>> He's right and you're wrong.
>
> >>>> Then you go buy a strip of LEDs to light up a sign and order a
> >>>> 'ballast' for it.
>
> >>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_ballast
>
> >>> First sentence:
> >>> "An electrical ballast is a device intended to limit the amount of
> >>> current in an electric circuit."
>
> >>>> You dumb fuck.
>
> >>> Pig-headed asshole.
>
> >> Geezus - I can carry a thread on for too long, but you guys take it
> >> to a new height. Name calling? C'mon - that ain't even right. Unless
> >> of course,
> >> you use terms like "dickwad", or "shit-for-brains". Those of course,
> >> are quite acceptable. So - either step it up to the proper level, or
> >> quit being pussys about this...
>
> >> --
>
> >> -Mike-
> >> [email protected]
>
> > I didn't call him any names.
>
> Lost track of who did and who didn't. =A0I don't waste a lot of time tryi=
ng to
> follow long posts back to who said what - it was just funny how the threa=
d
> evolved.
>
> --
>
> -Mike-
> [email protected]
When I called dumbfuck a dumb fuck, I wasn't talking to twatnoodle.
.
.
.
.
.
Being immature sometimes is such fun.
On 7/22/2011 8:05 AM, Robatoy wrote:
> On Jul 22, 8:37 am, Robatoy<[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Jul 22, 3:53 am, Bob Martin<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> in 1504372 20110722 053408 Robatoy<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Jul 22, 12:20=A0am, "[email protected]"
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>>> No end of discussion at all.
>>
>>>> Oh yes it is.
>>
>>> He's right and you're wrong.
>>
>> Then you go buy a strip of LEDs to light up a sign and order a
>> 'ballast' for it.
>> You dumb fuck.
>
> Ooops, did *I* say that?
LOL ... tell what you really think, Rob! ;)
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)
On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 18:56:41 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Jul 21, 9:29 pm, "[email protected]"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 18:02:01 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Jul 21, 7:23 pm, "[email protected]"
>> ><[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 16:14:03 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy <[email protected]>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >On Jul 21, 6:29 pm, "[email protected]"
>> >> ><[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >> On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 15:19:59 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy <[email protected]>
>> >> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >On Jul 21, 12:19 am, "[email protected]"
>> >> >> ><[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >> >> On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 18:15:00 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy <[email protected]>
>> >> >> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> >On Jul 20, 9:10 pm, "[email protected]"
>> >> >> >> ><[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 23:20:06 +0100, Stuart <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >In article <[email protected]>,
>> >> >> >> >> > m II <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> LEDs are current devices. Something has to absorb the excess voltage
>> >> >> >> >> >> when you control the current supply to it.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >Nothing, absolutely nothing, in the set runs on 120V. An efficient
>> >> >> >> >> >switching regulator reduces your 120V, or 240V if you live elsewhere in
>> >> >> >> >> >the world, down to more useful voltages. Modern LED drivers also use
>> >> >> >> >> >switch mode technology to increase efficiency and reduce energy loss
>> >> >> >> >> >through heat to a minimum.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> The switching regulator is limiting the current. It's really an "electronic
>> >> >> >> >> ballast".
>>
>> >> >> >> >load=ballast. Check.
>>
>> >> >> >> No, current_limiting_device == ballast. It does the same thing as an
>> >> >> >> electronic ballast in a fluorescent fixture.
>>
>> >> >> >Ballast = inductor (half a transformer... keeping it simple,
>> >> >> >remember?)
>>
>> >> >> That is an example of a ballast, sure. That isn't the definition of a
>> >> >> ballast, though.
>>
>> >> >> >NO LED circuit that I have ever seen used in backlit advertising signs
>> >> >> >has ever included a 'ballast' in the conventional sense. Choppers and
>> >> >> >resistors and diodes.... I know, all new technology to you... but it
>> >> >> >is not too late to learn.
>>
>> >> >> You couldn't be more wrong. That series resistor *is* a ballast resistor. By
>> >> >> "chopper", I assume you mean switching regulator. If it's used to ballast an
>> >> >> LED, it's a ballast. ;-)
>>
>> >> >> In case you hadn't forgotten, I'm a electronics design engineer, by day.
>>
>> >> >> >Now, if you want to burrow into a quagmire of semantics, knock
>> >> >> >yourself out.
>>
>> >> >> Nope. It's common usage.
>>
>> >> >> >By your logic, if a ship drags an anchor it is 'ballast' as opposed to
>> >> >> >what 'ballast' really is.
>>
>> >> >> Perhaps you're a sailor but I'm not claiming to be. I *am* an engineer,
>> >> >> though. The widget in series with a lamp to limit current, whatever it may
>> >> >> be, is called a "ballast". If it's a resistor, it's even called a "ballast
>> >> >> resistor".
>>
>> >> >I have a 1 watt LED and I would like you to give me the part number
>> >> >for a 'ballast' for it.
>>
>> >> No problem. Give me the part number, the voltage would you like to operate
>> >> from, and how much current you want through it and I'll give you the part
>> >> number of a ballast for it.
>>
>> >So now you're talking a power supply?
>>
>> I can give you a part number for that too, but you asked for the part number
>> of a ballast for your hypothetical LED. I can't give you that if I don't know
>> its operating conditions.
>
>Find me a ballast for LED lighting....sayyyy from these guys:
>http://ace-ballast.com/Pages/Home.html
>They have them for Fluorescents, and HID, but they use simple power
>supplies or drivers as they often call them to power LED's. So you're
>playing semantic ping-pong as per usual.
Semanitcs? Well, the current limiting resistor in an LED circuit *IS* called
a ballast resistor. That's just a fact. That's what a ballast does (limits
current).
>Maybe that engineering degree is a bit long-in-the-tooth and an update
>is required.
Nope. I'm still a practicing engineer. Just designed a switching ballast
network for an LED (laser diode, actually) today, in fact.
>In commercial lighting, being it signs or for spaces, the power
>supplies for LED systems are never referred to as ballasts.
NOT THE POWER SUPPLY! A ballast limits current.
>Now if there is a resistor in that LED power supply that has a
>function (although not as an inductor) which acts similar to a
>ballast, one point for the semantics. End of discussion.
No end of discussion at all. It *IS* a ballast! A ballast doesn't have to be
inductive. It can be resistive or capacitive, or switching (mimicking a
resistor, capacitor, or inductor). The common principle is that it limits
current.
It is semantics, I suppose, because that's what it's called. All words are
"semantic".
On Fri, 22 Jul 2011 05:37:33 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Jul 22, 3:53 am, Bob Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>> in 1504372 20110722 053408 Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >On Jul 22, 12:20=A0am, "[email protected]"
>> ><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >> No end of discussion at all.
>>
>> >Oh yes it is.
>>
>> He's right and you're wrong.
>
>Then you go buy a strip of LEDs to light up a sign and order a
>'ballast' for it.
>You dumb fuck.
Give me the specifics and I'll give you the P/N.
On Fri, 22 Jul 2011 21:29:08 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Jul 2011 05:37:33 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Jul 22, 3:53 am, Bob Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> in 1504372 20110722 053408 Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Jul 22, 12:20=A0am, "[email protected]"
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> No end of discussion at all.
>>>>
>>>>> Oh yes it is.
>>>>
>>>> He's right and you're wrong.
>>>
>>> Then you go buy a strip of LEDs to light up a sign and order a
>>> 'ballast' for it.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_ballast
>>
>> First sentence:
>> "An electrical ballast is a device intended to limit the amount of
>> current in an electric circuit."
>>
>>> You dumb fuck.
>>
>> Pig-headed asshole.
>
>Geezus - I can carry a thread on for too long, but you guys take it to a new
>height. Name calling? C'mon - that ain't even right. Unless of course,
>you use terms like "dickwad", or "shit-for-brains". Those of course, are
>quite acceptable. So - either step it up to the proper level, or quit being
>pussys about this...
Jeez, how thing *is* your skin?
On Fri, 22 Jul 2011 05:37:33 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Jul 22, 3:53 am, Bob Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>> in 1504372 20110722 053408 Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >On Jul 22, 12:20=A0am, "[email protected]"
>> ><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >> No end of discussion at all.
>>
>> >Oh yes it is.
>>
>> He's right and you're wrong.
>
>Then you go buy a strip of LEDs to light up a sign and order a
>'ballast' for it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_ballast
First sentence:
"An electrical ballast is a device intended to limit the amount of
current in an electric circuit."
>You dumb fuck.
Pig-headed asshole.
same old asshole
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Geezus - I can carry a thread on for too long, but you guys take it to a new
height. Name calling? C'mon - that ain't even right. Unless of course,
you use terms like "dickwad", or "shit-for-brains". Those of course, are
quite acceptable. So - either step it up to the proper level, or quit being
pussys about this...
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On 7/19/2011 11:06 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jul 2011 20:04:58 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Jul 19, 10:32 pm, Steve<[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On 2011-07-17 20:18:07 -0400, Bill<[email protected]> said:
>>>
>>>> Evidently LED is now a winner over LCD and units connected to the
>>>> Internet are on the way to becoming the norm (I was told Samsung was
>>>> pushing by not introducing any other sort). Of course, from what I saw
>>>> (keeps me on-topic) those sets are not ready for prime time, having
>>>> merely a cell-phone type interface. I still don't have or want a cell
>>>> phone.
>>>
>>> Bet they did not point out that the huge LED array generates
>>> considerable heat. Adds to your air conditioning bill!
>>
>> No they don't. Usually a quarter of similar size plasma, and less than
>> a standard LCD with fluorescent backlight.
>
> The full LED arrays compare to the energy inefficiency of the plamas.
> Walk by either one from a couple feet and you can feel the heat.
I think you have your terminology mixed up. I personally have the old
style LCD and the newer LED LCD screens. The LED LCD screen produces
little to no heat after being on all day long and the lowest energy
consumption of any regular LCD screen.
>
> Edgelit LED arrays are much more efficient, taking just a bit more
> than the comparably sized LCD. These are the way to go.
>
> The 37" Vizio I helped my neighbor choose was LCD and takes 68 Watts.
> She's thrilled, moving up from a 26 year old 19" tube type.
>
> --
> Progress is the product of human agency. Things get better because we
> make them better. Things go wrong when we get too comfortable, when we
> fail to take risks or seize opportunities.
> -- Susan Rice
On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 09:19:18 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Jul 20, 12:03 pm, "m II" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> It take a few more components than that. LEDs can't stand up to much PIV.
>> Your lack of electronics knowledge is showing but to use your oversimplified
>> analysis shows what a ballast could be composed of.
>>
>
>It was oversimplified for a reason. But you seem to like the word
>'ballast' so by all means use it (wrongly).
It's not wrong.
>And you should make that correspondence course from a matchbook cover
>give you your money back.
On 7/20/2011 12:13 AM, Bill wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
>> On Jul 20, 12:06 am, Larry Jaques<[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 19 Jul 2011 20:04:58 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> On Jul 19, 10:32 pm, Steve<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> On 2011-07-17 20:18:07 -0400, Bill<[email protected]> said:
>>>
>>>>>> Evidently LED is now a winner over LCD and units connected to the
>>>>>> Internet are on the way to becoming the norm (I was told Samsung was
>>>>>> pushing by not introducing any other sort). Of course, from what I
>>>>>> saw
>>>>>> (keeps me on-topic) those sets are not ready for prime time, having
>>>>>> merely a cell-phone type interface. I still don't have or want a cell
>>>>>> phone.
>>>
>>>>> Bet they did not point out that the huge LED array generates
>>>>> considerable heat. Adds to your air conditioning bill!
>>>
>>>> No they don't. Usually a quarter of similar size plasma, and less than
>>>> a standard LCD with fluorescent backlight.
>>>
>>> The full LED arrays compare to the energy inefficiency of the plamas.
>>> Walk by either one from a couple feet and you can feel the heat.
>>>
>>
>>
>> *buzzerrrr*
>>
>> CNET has charts.. on average (46") plasma 400watts, LCD 120watts,
>> LEDLCD 105 watts, edgelit banana 3 watts
>>
>
> Hey Rob, thanks for finding this. I went looking for the info for a
> Samsung, and in the user manual it directed the user to the "tag on the
> unit" for power information!
>
> A month ago, I would have thought LCD was fine. But if you look at an
> LCD and LED side-by-side, I think the LED makes a good case for itself
> (by being Much brighter). I was surprised by the amount of difference.
>
> Bill
Not to mention, cooler, and much longer life expectancy over the
florescent style LCD.
On 7/27/2011 2:33 AM, Bill wrote:
> Leon wrote:
>> On 7/26/2011 8:52 PM, Han wrote:
>>> Puckdropper<puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote in
>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> Bill<[email protected]> wrote in
>>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>>
>>>>> Yes, I read alot of reviews this week. That shifted my thinking from
>>>>> the Samsung "7000" series (w/wi-fi, web browser, 240Hz) to the
>>>>> Samsung "6000" series (ethernet connection but no wi-fi, 120 hz, no
>>>>> web browser). I'm not enthused by 3D. This shift knocks about 1/3
>>>>> off of the price, and I can add some of the extra features as "add
>>>>> ons" when they are more "ready for prime time". Current web browsers
>>>>> on TV appear to be a step back to dialup access (actually much worse
>>>>> than that)!
>>>>>
>>>> *snip*
>>>>
>>>> If you want internet access on the TV, get one with a PC connector
>>>> (It's a 15-pin D-style connector) or a PC with HDMI output. TVs are
>>>> getting to be fancy monitors, so you won't get the fuzziness of
>>>> picture like you would even 5 years ago.
>>>>
>>>> You can get internet access on the Wii, but it's really not that
>>>> great.
>>>>
>>>> Puckdropper
>>>
>>> I get internet and internet services like Pandora& Netflix via my
>>> blueray player, but since I depend on wifi and a Verizon router, it
>>> sucks
>>> most of the time. I have to get an ethernet cable strung through the
>>> basement from one end of the livingroom to the other<sh_t> ...
>>
>> I have a Samsung BluRay that is WiFi and I have pretty good internet
>> Pandora, YouTube. You might want to check your internet speed, IIRC 6
>> megabits is the least you want for streaming video and or make sure your
>> router is not getting long in the tooth.
>
> No, that wireless router quit doing wireless about a year ago and has
> been replaced.
>
> Maybe the hardware offerings will improve in the coming months.
>
> I'm assume that the motivation for the larger Blue-ray storage is that
> they are not large enough for HD movies. I know a standard DVD holds
> about 5GB and standard BR holds about 25GB. Do you take it for granted
> that videos you buy for your Blue-Ray player are in HD?
Yes you do need the capacity of the Blu-ray to hold a typical full
length HD movie. I would suspect that if the movie is in Blu-ray it
would be HD.
>
> I currently have a DVD player that also plays VHS underneath my DVR and
> my Cablebox. These units are starting to pile up! : )
I hear you on that front. Since switching to DVR's some 6-7 years ago
I use the other boxes less and less. I am not the kind of person to
watch a movie more than once unless it is damn good.
>
> Bill
>
>
> You do not have to have an
>> Ethernet connection if every thing else is working correctly.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
On 7/26/2011 8:52 PM, Han wrote:
> Puckdropper<puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> Bill<[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> Yes, I read alot of reviews this week. That shifted my thinking from
>>> the Samsung "7000" series (w/wi-fi, web browser, 240Hz) to the
>>> Samsung "6000" series (ethernet connection but no wi-fi, 120 hz, no
>>> web browser). I'm not enthused by 3D. This shift knocks about 1/3
>>> off of the price, and I can add some of the extra features as "add
>>> ons" when they are more "ready for prime time". Current web browsers
>>> on TV appear to be a step back to dialup access (actually much worse
>>> than that)!
>>>
>> *snip*
>>
>> If you want internet access on the TV, get one with a PC connector
>> (It's a 15-pin D-style connector) or a PC with HDMI output. TVs are
>> getting to be fancy monitors, so you won't get the fuzziness of
>> picture like you would even 5 years ago.
>>
>> You can get internet access on the Wii, but it's really not that
>> great.
>>
>> Puckdropper
>
> I get internet and internet services like Pandora& Netflix via my
> blueray player, but since I depend on wifi and a Verizon router, it sucks
> most of the time. I have to get an ethernet cable strung through the
> basement from one end of the livingroom to the other<sh_t> ...
I have a Samsung BluRay that is WiFi and I have pretty good internet
Pandora, YouTube. You might want to check your internet speed, IIRC 6
megabits is the least you want for streaming video and or make sure your
router is not getting long in the tooth. You do not have to have an
Ethernet connection if every thing else is working correctly.
On 7/27/2011 8:30 AM, Swingman wrote:
> On 7/27/2011 5:58 AM, Leon wrote:
>> I am not the kind of person to watch
>> a movie more than once unless it is damn good.
>
> Unless, of course, it has Ashely Judd in it; or is starts with
> "O'Brother...", or "World's Fastest Indian". ;)
>
I think you named all but one! ~). Don't forget Second Hand Lions.
On 7/20/2011 9:13 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 08:48:24 -0500, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
> wrote:
>
>> On 7/20/2011 7:30 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>> On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 06:45:53 -0500, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 7/19/2011 11:06 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>>
>>>>> The full LED arrays compare to the energy inefficiency of the plamas.
>>>>> Walk by either one from a couple feet and you can feel the heat.
>>>>
>>>> I think you have your terminology mixed up. I personally have the old
>>>> style LCD and the newer LED LCD screens. The LED LCD screen produces
>>>> little to no heat after being on all day long and the lowest energy
>>>> consumption of any regular LCD screen.
>>>
>>> You obviously bought an edgelit model.
>>
>> Nope, back lit. Relatively inexpensive. As thick or thicker than the
>> other regular LCD screens in my house. And no noticeable heat.
>
> OK, if you say so. I can't foolishly dispute an owner, can I?
>
> I only read that one article which specified average power levels
> between the two types before actually looking at TVs, but it made
> sense. I think it was on About.com, a far-from-peer-reviewed site.
>
> --
> Always bear in mind that your own resolution to
> succeed is more important than any one thing.
> -- Abraham Lincoln
In a store there could be other contributing factors to make the LED set
seem warm. I never put any thought to it myself as I knew that
florescent LCD screens were quite cool compared to the old tube screens
but still put out a small amount of heat.
One day I was checking the LED LCD screen at home and the top of the set
was room temperature after being on all day.
On 7/20/2011 9:03 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 05:42:55 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Jul 20, 8:30 am, Larry Jaques<[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 06:45:53 -0500, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 7/19/2011 11:06 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>>>> The full LED arrays compare to the energy inefficiency of the plamas.
>>>>> Walk by either one from a couple feet and you can feel the heat.
>>>
>>>> I think you have your terminology mixed up. I personally have the old
>>>> style LCD and the newer LED LCD screens. The LED LCD screen produces
>>>> little to no heat after being on all day long and the lowest energy
>>>> consumption of any regular LCD screen.
>>>
>>> You obviously bought an edgelit model. There are two types.http://hometheater.about.com/od/televisions/qt/ledlcdtvfacts.htm
>>> I put my hand on a few sets while we were looking at TVs and the LCD
>>> and edgelit LED LCD sets were barely over room temps. The full array
>>> was close to the heat of the plasmas, and you could feel it on a bare
>>> arm from a couple feet away while walking by. Shying away from the
>>> heat (knowing it would cost her precious money) I didn't notice the
>>> brand or model numbers. It was in Sears, though (against my advice not
>>> to shop there.)
>>>
>> Musta been a mislabelled plasma.
>
> I don't think so. The plasmas all have glass (glaring crap) screens
> and I believe this one had more of a matte screen.
If you are shopping be careful to not rely on that to differentiate.
Many retailers will put a protective coating on the screens on both LCD
and plasma screens as an add on to the sale. Those protective films
come in glossy and matte finishes. Not saying that is what you saw but
it is often hard to tell a plasma from an LCD. I have found that the
sure fire way to tell is lift the corner, plasma sets are still damn
heavy sets by comparison.
On 7/19/2011 9:32 PM, Steve wrote:
> On 2011-07-17 20:18:07 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> said:
>
>> Evidently LED is now a winner over LCD and units connected to the
>> Internet are on the way to becoming the norm (I was told Samsung was
>> pushing by not introducing any other sort). Of course, from what I saw
>> (keeps me on-topic) those sets are not ready for prime time, having
>> merely a cell-phone type interface. I still don't have or want a cell
>> phone.
>
> Bet they did not point out that the huge LED array generates
> considerable heat. Adds to your air conditioning bill!
One of the biggest advantages of a LED display is the absence of heat.
Much much cooler than the common LCD display which is many times over
cooler than the old CRT.
Puckdropper <puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Bill <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> Yes, I read alot of reviews this week. That shifted my thinking from
>> the Samsung "7000" series (w/wi-fi, web browser, 240Hz) to the
>> Samsung "6000" series (ethernet connection but no wi-fi, 120 hz, no
>> web browser). I'm not enthused by 3D. This shift knocks about 1/3
>> off of the price, and I can add some of the extra features as "add
>> ons" when they are more "ready for prime time". Current web browsers
>> on TV appear to be a step back to dialup access (actually much worse
>> than that)!
>>
> *snip*
>
> If you want internet access on the TV, get one with a PC connector
> (It's a 15-pin D-style connector) or a PC with HDMI output. TVs are
> getting to be fancy monitors, so you won't get the fuzziness of
> picture like you would even 5 years ago.
>
> You can get internet access on the Wii, but it's really not that
> great.
>
> Puckdropper
I get internet and internet services like Pandora & Netflix via my
blueray player, but since I depend on wifi and a Verizon router, it sucks
most of the time. I have to get an ethernet cable strung through the
basement from one end of the livingroom to the other <sh_t> ...
As the salesman said, you can get a fancy TV with internet, or one
without. Many/most BR players are equipped so can supply it. Or a PC
...
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote in
news:86c631a0-855a-4fd7-a1e9-a447b1521bc5@j14g2000prn.googlegroups.com:
> On Jul 26, 11:41 pm, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>> On 7/26/2011 8:52 PM, Han wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Puckdropper<puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote in
>> >news:[email protected]:
>>
>> >> Bill<[email protected]> wrote in
>> >>news:[email protected]:
>>
>> >>> Yes, I read alot of reviews this week. That shifted my thinking
>> >>> from the Samsung "7000" series (w/wi-fi, web browser, 240Hz) to
>> >>> the Samsung "6000" series (ethernet connection but no wi-fi, 120
>> >>> hz, no web browser). I'm not enthused by 3D. This shift knocks
>> >>> about 1/3 off of the price, and I can add some of the extra
>> >>> features as "add ons" when they are more "ready for prime time".
>> >>> Current web browsers on TV appear to be a step back to dialup
>> >>> access (actually much worse than that)!
>>
>> >> *snip*
>>
>> >> If you want internet access on the TV, get one with a PC connector
>> >> (It's a 15-pin D-style connector) or a PC with HDMI output. TVs
>> >> are getting to be fancy monitors, so you won't get the fuzziness
>> >> of picture like you would even 5 years ago.
>>
>> >> You can get internet access on the Wii, but it's really not that
>> >> great.
>>
>> >> Puckdropper
>>
>> > I get internet and internet services like Pandora& Netflix via my
>> > blueray player, but since I depend on wifi and a Verizon router, it
>> > suc
> ks
>> > most of the time. I have to get an ethernet cable strung through
>> > the basement from one end of the livingroom to the other<sh_t> ...
>>
>> I have a Samsung BluRay that is WiFi and I have pretty good internet
>> Pandora, YouTube. You might want to check your internet speed, IIRC
>> 6 megabits is the least you want for streaming video and or make sure
>> your router is not getting long in the tooth. You do not have to
>> have an Ethernet connection if every thing else is working correctly.
>
> I have one ethernet cable going to my NetGear router/transmitter.
> Period.
> The rest is now WiFi. 2 iMacs, a G4 for email and browsing, an Apple
> Powerbook, and 2 PC's, one of which is a laptop, a laser printer and
> an AppleTV going to my plasma via HDMI. Flawless performance.
The Verizon Wifi router that I have is indeed long in the tooth. It
often requires more than 1 or 2 attempts to log on to that f'ing radio.
I will remodel the LAN any time soon now <grin>. Then I have to find out
whether to get another router and if so which one. At the moment the
WR1424 or whatever the VZ router is called is only 10/100, as are most
all other things on the LAN. Need to find out whether I should rewire
for gigabit LAN ...
This'll be a wintertime project.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> So, can your -TV- get viruses from dem poan sites now?
Mine is immune. Yours??
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Puckdropper <puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Han <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>>
>> The Verizon Wifi router that I have is indeed long in the tooth. It
>> often requires more than 1 or 2 attempts to log on to that f'ing
>> radio. I will remodel the LAN any time soon now <grin>. Then I have
>> to find out whether to get another router and if so which one. At
>> the moment the WR1424 or whatever the VZ router is called is only
>> 10/100, as are most all other things on the LAN. Need to find out
>> whether I should rewire for gigabit LAN ...
>>
>> This'll be a wintertime project.
>>
>
> If you replace the router with a gigabit router, you might be able to
> take advantage of gigabit immediately. Most cables for some time now
> have been cat 5e, which supports gigabit speeds. (I may not be
> getting 1000 mbs on my older cables, but it's much faster than 100.)
>
> You won't see faster internet, but computer-to-computer transfers will
> be much faster.
>
> Puckdropper
Thanks!!
Do you have any advice as to a good cost-effective gigabit router??
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Puckdropper <puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote in news:4e308b87$0$9801
[email protected]:
Thanks!
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Baloney! White LEDs are not much more efficient than an incandescent bulb!
White LEDs are not as efficient as the old fluorescent bulbs used in
previous LCD sets. Manufacturer`s specs are with a bare element and the case
and ballasts are never included in the specs.
Any LED TV gets just as warm as the fluor sets but not nearly as warm as a
plasma. Check you specs carefully and notice how it always claims ``after
calibration`` which means only visible when dark.
-----------------
"Leon" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Nope, back lit. Relatively inexpensive. As thick or thicker than the
other regular LCD screens in my house. And no noticeable heat.
There are two types.
> http://hometheater.about.com/od/televisions/qt/ledlcdtvfacts.htm
> I put my hand on a few sets while we were looking at TVs and the LCD
> and edgelit LED LCD sets were barely over room temps. The full array
> was close to the heat of the plasmas, and you could feel it on a bare
> arm from a couple feet away while walking by. Shying away from the
> heat (knowing it would cost her precious money) I didn't notice the
> brand or model numbers. It was in Sears, though (against my advice not
> to shop there.)
On Jul 20, 12:03=A0pm, "m II" <[email protected]> wrote:
> It take a few more components than that. LEDs can't stand up to much PIV.
> Your lack of electronics knowledge is showing but to use your oversimplif=
ied
> analysis shows what a ballast could be composed of.
>
It was oversimplified for a reason. But you seem to like the word
'ballast' so by all means use it (wrongly).
And you should make that correspondence course from a matchbook cover
give you your money back.
On Jul 20, 8:30=A0am, Larry Jaques <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 06:45:53 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
> wrote:
>
> >On 7/19/2011 11:06 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
> >> The full LED arrays compare to the energy inefficiency of the plamas.
> >> Walk by either one from a couple feet and you can feel the heat.
>
> >I think you have your terminology mixed up. =A0I personally have the old
> >style LCD and the newer LED LCD screens. =A0The LED LCD screen produces
> >little to no heat after being on all day long =A0and the lowest energy
> >consumption of any regular LCD screen.
>
> You obviously bought an edgelit model. There are two types.http://homethe=
ater.about.com/od/televisions/qt/ledlcdtvfacts.htm
> I put my hand on a few sets while we were looking at TVs and the LCD
> and edgelit LED LCD sets were barely over room temps. The full array
> was close to the heat of the plasmas, and you could feel it on a bare
> arm from a couple feet away while walking by. Shying away from the
> heat (knowing it would cost her precious money) I didn't notice the
> brand or model numbers. It was in Sears, though (against my advice not
> to shop there.)
>
Musta been a mislabelled plasma. The ones I have seen are cool as a
cucumber. My 46" plasma throws a fair bit of warmth, but what a
picture. Especially now that I have it powered through a variac with
conditioning. The 46 had a better picture than the 50 right next to it
as it has the same amount of pixels but more densely packed.
Oh, and C-less, you don't know your bananas from your elbow.
The efficiency of the ballast circuitry is way up with switching and other
modern techniques but still required in any LED circuit.
------------
"Stuart" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
Nothing, absolutely nothing, in the set runs on 120V. An efficient
switching regulator reduces your 120V, or 240V if you live elsewhere in
the world, down to more useful voltages. Modern LED drivers also use
switch mode technology to increase efficiency and reduce energy loss
through heat to a minimum.
---------------
In article <[email protected]>,
m II <[email protected]> wrote:
LEDs are current devices. Something has to absorb the excess voltage
when you control the current supply to it.
(U)nix users acquire viruses all the time.
They just can't tell the difference if they have one running or not.
--------------
"Jack Stein" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
Well, if your TV is dumb enough to be a Windows PC, look for 100
viruses/day... Unix based, not so much, cause no one uses Unix TV's, no
one writes for those buggers:-)
--
On Jul 20, 1:13=A0pm, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
> On 7/20/2011 9:03 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 05:42:55 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
> > <[email protected]> =A0wrote:
>
> >> On Jul 20, 8:30 am, Larry Jaques<[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 06:45:53 -0500, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
> >>> wrote:
>
> >>>> On 7/19/2011 11:06 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
> >>>>> The full LED arrays compare to the energy inefficiency of the plama=
s.
> >>>>> Walk by either one from a couple feet and you can feel the heat.
>
> >>>> I think you have your terminology mixed up. =A0I personally have the=
old
> >>>> style LCD and the newer LED LCD screens. =A0The LED LCD screen produ=
ces
> >>>> little to no heat after being on all day long =A0and the lowest ener=
gy
> >>>> consumption of any regular LCD screen.
>
> >>> You obviously bought an edgelit model. There are two types.http://hom=
etheater.about.com/od/televisions/qt/ledlcdtvfacts.htm
> >>> I put my hand on a few sets while we were looking at TVs and the LCD
> >>> and edgelit LED LCD sets were barely over room temps. The full array
> >>> was close to the heat of the plasmas, and you could feel it on a bare
> >>> arm from a couple feet away while walking by. Shying away from the
> >>> heat (knowing it would cost her precious money) I didn't notice the
> >>> brand or model numbers. It was in Sears, though (against my advice no=
t
> >>> to shop there.)
>
> >> Musta been a mislabelled plasma.
>
> > I don't think so. =A0The plasmas all have glass (glaring crap) screens
> > and I believe this one had more of a matte screen.
>
> If you are shopping be careful to not rely on that to differentiate.
> Many retailers will put a protective coating on the screens on both LCD
> and plasma screens as an add on to the sale. =A0Those protective films
> come in glossy and matte finishes. =A0Not saying that is what you saw but
> it is often hard to tell a plasma from an LCD. =A0I have found that the
> sure fire way to tell is lift the corner, plasma sets are still damn
> heavy sets by comparison.
Toss in disc#1 of BBC's Planets BluRay and I will tell you in a few
seconds which is which. It is becoming more difficult, mind you as the
LED/LCD are at 1080p and fast refresh rates (Where are we at now/
240Hz?) and they're getting their blacks blacker, but the shadow
detail and highlight information, PLUS the 600Hz+ refresh of a plasma
is hard to beat. The downside of plasma, is the power consumption and
you need a dark, unlit wall behind you. The anti-glare plasma screens
give up too much detail.
I would be happy with a 1080pLED/LCD at 120hz or faster, but in the
meantime, I will enjoy my plasma.
On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 03:04:20 -0400, Bill <[email protected]>
wrote:
>special that it is unlikely to happen. I think I would rather just carry
>USB memory back and forth for the sake of content.
If your TV has a USB input, then you may be able to use a USB wireless
adapter to transfer your content. $20 or $30 and you're in business.
http://www.bestbuy.ca/en-CA/category/wireless-n-usb-adapters/26056.aspx
Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jul 2011 20:04:58 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Jul 19, 10:32 pm, Steve<[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On 2011-07-17 20:18:07 -0400, Bill<[email protected]> said:
>>>
>>>> Evidently LED is now a winner over LCD and units connected to the
>>>> Internet are on the way to becoming the norm (I was told Samsung was
>>>> pushing by not introducing any other sort). Of course, from what I saw
>>>> (keeps me on-topic) those sets are not ready for prime time, having
>>>> merely a cell-phone type interface. I still don't have or want a cell
>>>> phone.
>>>
>>> Bet they did not point out that the huge LED array generates
>>> considerable heat. Adds to your air conditioning bill!
>>
>> No they don't. Usually a quarter of similar size plasma, and less than
>> a standard LCD with fluorescent backlight.
>
> The full LED arrays compare to the energy inefficiency of the plamas.
> Walk by either one from a couple feet and you can feel the heat.
>
> Edgelit LED arrays are much more efficient, taking just a bit more
> than the comparably sized LCD. These are the way to go.
Are those the ones they label "LED-LCD"? It seems the back lit LEDs
are getting a lot of credit for a better picture through
"micro-dimming". As a CRT owner, you can be sure I'm a techno-snob--or
that I don't watch much tv..lol. The last time I bought a tv the
Internet was barely in its infancy! :) After a bit of window-shopping,
the Samsung Smart TV more or less rose to the top, but I feel like even
its Internet-related features are not "ready for prime time".
Bill
>
> The 37" Vizio I helped my neighbor choose was LCD and takes 68 Watts.
> She's thrilled, moving up from a 26 year old 19" tube type.
>
> --
> Progress is the product of human agency. Things get better because we
> make them better. Things go wrong when we get too comfortable, when we
> fail to take risks or seize opportunities.
> -- Susan Rice
Robatoy wrote:
> On Jul 20, 12:06 am, Larry Jaques<[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Jul 2011 20:04:58 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On Jul 19, 10:32 pm, Steve<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> On 2011-07-17 20:18:07 -0400, Bill<[email protected]> said:
>>
>>>>> Evidently LED is now a winner over LCD and units connected to the
>>>>> Internet are on the way to becoming the norm (I was told Samsung was
>>>>> pushing by not introducing any other sort). Of course, from what I saw
>>>>> (keeps me on-topic) those sets are not ready for prime time, having
>>>>> merely a cell-phone type interface. I still don't have or want a cell
>>>>> phone.
>>
>>>> Bet they did not point out that the huge LED array generates
>>>> considerable heat. Adds to your air conditioning bill!
>>
>>> No they don't. Usually a quarter of similar size plasma, and less than
>>> a standard LCD with fluorescent backlight.
>>
>> The full LED arrays compare to the energy inefficiency of the plamas.
>> Walk by either one from a couple feet and you can feel the heat.
>>
>
>
> *buzzerrrr*
>
> CNET has charts.. on average (46") plasma 400watts, LCD 120watts,
> LEDLCD 105 watts, edgelit banana 3 watts
>
Hey Rob, thanks for finding this. I went looking for the info for a
Samsung, and in the user manual it directed the user to the "tag on the
unit" for power information!
A month ago, I would have thought LCD was fine. But if you look at an
LCD and LED side-by-side, I think the LED makes a good case for itself
(by being Much brighter). I was surprised by the amount of difference.
Bill
>
>>
>> The 37" Vizio I helped my neighbor choose was LCD and takes 68 Watts.
>> She's thrilled, moving up from a 26 year old 19" tube type.
>>
>> --
>> Progress is the product of human agency. Things get better because we
>> make them better. Things go wrong when we get too comfortable, when we
>> fail to take risks or seize opportunities.
>> -- Susan Rice
>
On 7/20/2011 12:32 AM, Bill wrote:
> Are those the ones they label "LED-LCD"? It seems the back lit LEDs are
> getting a lot of credit for a better picture through
> "micro-dimming". As a CRT owner, you can be sure I'm a techno-snob--or
> that I don't watch much tv..lol. The last time I bought a tv the
> Internet was barely in its infancy! :) After a bit of window-shopping,
> the Samsung Smart TV more or less rose to the top, but I feel like even
> its Internet-related features are not "ready for prime time".
I have both LCD and LED TV's. The LCD was breath taking compared to my
old tube TV. My wife got a Samsung LED with wireless internet for Xmas
from the kids. The LED picture is awesome compared to the LCD. The
wireless internet hookup works but is not what you would think. You can
only do a few limited things, like YouTube, stock quotes, Netflix,
weather. It is very limited. I was not able to network my PC or the
internet to the wireless hookup. It has a really nice jpg picture
viewer that works off a thumb drive, and my digital photos are awesome
on the thing. I wanted to hook my PC wirelessly to view the photos but
nope, couldn't get it to work.
With comcast, you need a HD box to get HD. That costs extra, and an HD
TV w/o the extra HD box sucks worse than my old tube TV. Personally, TV
is a wasteland, but, if you have a VCR so you can record the things you
are interested in, and then watch at your leisure skipping commercials,
it's not too bad.
--
Jack
You Can't Fix Stupid, but You Can Vote it Out!
http://jbstein.com
On 7/26/2011 10:43 AM, Robatoy wrote:
> On Jul 26, 1:49 am, Jack Stein<[email protected]> wrote:
>> With comcast, you need a HD box to get HD. That costs extra, and an HD
>> TV w/o the extra HD box sucks worse than my old tube TV. Personally, TV
>> is a wasteland, but, if you have a VCR so you can record the things you
>> are interested in, and then watch at your leisure skipping commercials,
>> it's not too bad.
> What's a VCR?
DVR, thanks for caring...
--
Jack
You Can't Fix Stupid, but You Can Vote it Out!
http://jbstein.com
Jack Stein wrote:
> I have both LCD and LED TV's. The LCD was breath taking compared to my
> old tube TV. My wife got a Samsung LED with wireless internet for Xmas
> from the kids. The LED picture is awesome compared to the LCD. The
> wireless internet hookup works but is not what you would think. You can
> only do a few limited things, like YouTube, stock quotes, Netflix,
> weather. It is very limited.
Yes, I read alot of reviews this week. That shifted my thinking from
the Samsung "7000" series (w/wi-fi, web browser, 240Hz) to the Samsung
"6000" series (ethernet connection but no wi-fi, 120 hz, no web
browser). I'm not enthused by 3D. This shift knocks about 1/3 off of
the price, and I can add some of the extra features as "add ons" when
they are more "ready for prime time". Current web browsers on TV appear
to be a step back to dialup access (actually much worse than that)!
I've noticed quite a lack of real-time streaming content (like the
financial news on CNBC) among Internet "content providers". Of course,
Comcast and CNBC are corporately-related somehow, and "they" know what
they are doing/manipulating...
I was not able to network my PC or the
> internet to the wireless hookup. It has a really nice jpg picture viewer
> that works off a thumb drive, and my digital photos are awesome on the
> thing. I wanted to hook my PC wirelessly to view the photos but nope,
> couldn't get it to work.
>
> With comcast, you need a HD box to get HD. That costs extra, and an HD
> TV w/o the extra HD box sucks worse than my old tube TV.
I actually have the HD box, because when I moved, the new "standard" box
seemed suck-o (taking at least 5 seconds to change channels). I got a
replacement box, same thing. So now I'm paying 7.50/mo more for the HD
box--but it has a DVR too.
Personally, TV
> is a wasteland, but, if you have a VCR so you can record the things you
> are interested in, and then watch at your leisure skipping commercials,
> it's not too bad.
Yes, the DVR/VCR improved the whole experience. The Woodwright Shop and
a few other shows are recorded automatically, and I can zip through the
commercials some other shows in short order. Its sort of laughable that
there can be so many channels with so little content. I noticed a show
the other days teaching women (young girls) how to "flirt". I wonder
why more kids don't want to grow up to be engineers?
Bill
Puckdropper wrote:
> Bill<[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
>> Yes, I read alot of reviews this week. That shifted my thinking from
>> the Samsung "7000" series (w/wi-fi, web browser, 240Hz) to the Samsung
>> "6000" series (ethernet connection but no wi-fi, 120 hz, no web
>> browser). I'm not enthused by 3D. This shift knocks about 1/3 off of
>> the price, and I can add some of the extra features as "add ons" when
>> they are more "ready for prime time". Current web browsers on TV appear
>> to be a step back to dialup access (actually much worse than that)!
>>
> *snip*
>
> If you want internet access on the TV, get one with a PC connector (It's a
> 15-pin D-style connector) or a PC with HDMI output. TVs are getting to be
> fancy monitors, so you won't get the fuzziness of picture like you would
> even 5 years ago.
>
> You can get internet access on the Wii, but it's really not that great.
Thank you for all of your comments! Very helpful. My wife has a Wii
(a gift). I didn't realize it had wi-fi. Will it support browsing?
I just checked my PC's GPU manual and I have a HDMI output and didn't
even know it. But since the TV and PC reside in separate rooms, and the
PC is wired down, I would only be willing to move it for an occasion so
special that it is unlikely to happen. I think I would rather just carry
USB memory back and forth for the sake of content.
Thanks again for helping me catch up with what is going on with the
technology.
Bill
>
> Puckdropper
Leon wrote:
> On 7/26/2011 8:52 PM, Han wrote:
>> Puckdropper<puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> Bill<[email protected]> wrote in
>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> Yes, I read alot of reviews this week. That shifted my thinking from
>>>> the Samsung "7000" series (w/wi-fi, web browser, 240Hz) to the
>>>> Samsung "6000" series (ethernet connection but no wi-fi, 120 hz, no
>>>> web browser). I'm not enthused by 3D. This shift knocks about 1/3
>>>> off of the price, and I can add some of the extra features as "add
>>>> ons" when they are more "ready for prime time". Current web browsers
>>>> on TV appear to be a step back to dialup access (actually much worse
>>>> than that)!
>>>>
>>> *snip*
>>>
>>> If you want internet access on the TV, get one with a PC connector
>>> (It's a 15-pin D-style connector) or a PC with HDMI output. TVs are
>>> getting to be fancy monitors, so you won't get the fuzziness of
>>> picture like you would even 5 years ago.
>>>
>>> You can get internet access on the Wii, but it's really not that
>>> great.
>>>
>>> Puckdropper
>>
>> I get internet and internet services like Pandora& Netflix via my
>> blueray player, but since I depend on wifi and a Verizon router, it sucks
>> most of the time. I have to get an ethernet cable strung through the
>> basement from one end of the livingroom to the other<sh_t> ...
>
> I have a Samsung BluRay that is WiFi and I have pretty good internet
> Pandora, YouTube. You might want to check your internet speed, IIRC 6
> megabits is the least you want for streaming video and or make sure your
> router is not getting long in the tooth.
No, that wireless router quit doing wireless about a year ago and has
been replaced.
Maybe the hardware offerings will improve in the coming months.
I'm assume that the motivation for the larger Blue-ray storage is that
they are not large enough for HD movies. I know a standard DVD holds
about 5GB and standard BR holds about 25GB. Do you take it for granted
that videos you buy for your Blue-Ray player are in HD?
I currently have a DVD player that also plays VHS underneath my DVR and
my Cablebox. These units are starting to pile up! : )
Bill
You do not have to have an
> Ethernet connection if every thing else is working correctly.
>
>
>
>
>
Dave wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 03:04:20 -0400, Bill<[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> special that it is unlikely to happen. I think I would rather just carry
>> USB memory back and forth for the sake of content.
>
> If your TV has a USB input, then you may be able to use a USB wireless
> adapter to transfer your content. $20 or $30 and you're in business.
>
> http://www.bestbuy.ca/en-CA/category/wireless-n-usb-adapters/26056.aspx
Thank you for your reply. But based upon reading reviews, I've learned
that LG, Samsung and Sony tv seems to prefer (require!) proprietary
wireless adapters. There was some "irritation" that tv's which were
adverised as "wi-fi ready" required the extra investment.
http://www.amazon.com/Samsung-WIS09ABGN-LinkStick-Wireless-Adapter/dp/B0021LA1BE/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1311759812&sr=8-1
I guess attaching a Blue-Ray player having wi-fi is a way around this.
BTW, if you (anyone) hastn't tried camelcamelcamel.com, it's a great way
to view the price history of products you are interested in.
Bill
Leon wrote:
>> I currently have a DVD player that also plays VHS underneath my DVR and
>> my Cablebox. These units are starting to pile up! : )
>
> I hear you on that front. Since switching to DVR's some 6-7 years ago I
> use the other boxes less and less. I am not the kind of person to watch
> a movie more than once unless it is damn good.
Me too, but I have more invested in VHS tapes, DVDs, and audio cassettes
than I do in the players. I'm not ready to trash them all yet!
It should be nice to invoke (audio) mp3 files on my computer from the tv
in the living room. I will listen to them more.
Bill
Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jul 2011 22:41:57 -0500, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
> wrote:
>
>> On 7/26/2011 8:52 PM, Han wrote:
>>> Puckdropper<puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote in
>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> Bill<[email protected]> wrote in
>>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>>
>>>>> Yes, I read alot of reviews this week. That shifted my thinking from
>>>>> the Samsung "7000" series (w/wi-fi, web browser, 240Hz) to the
>>>>> Samsung "6000" series (ethernet connection but no wi-fi, 120 hz, no
>>>>> web browser). I'm not enthused by 3D. This shift knocks about 1/3
>>>>> off of the price, and I can add some of the extra features as "add
>>>>> ons" when they are more "ready for prime time". Current web browsers
>>>>> on TV appear to be a step back to dialup access (actually much worse
>>>>> than that)!
>>>>>
>>>> *snip*
>>>>
>>>> If you want internet access on the TV, get one with a PC connector
>>>> (It's a 15-pin D-style connector) or a PC with HDMI output. TVs are
>>>> getting to be fancy monitors, so you won't get the fuzziness of
>>>> picture like you would even 5 years ago.
>>>>
>>>> You can get internet access on the Wii, but it's really not that
>>>> great.
>>>>
>>>> Puckdropper
>>>
>>> I get internet and internet services like Pandora& Netflix via my
>>> blueray player, but since I depend on wifi and a Verizon router, it sucks
>>> most of the time. I have to get an ethernet cable strung through the
>>> basement from one end of the livingroom to the other<sh_t> ...
>>
>> I have a Samsung BluRay that is WiFi and I have pretty good internet
>> Pandora, YouTube. You might want to check your internet speed, IIRC 6
>> megabits is the least you want for streaming video and or make sure your
>> router is not getting long in the tooth. You do not have to have an
>> Ethernet connection if every thing else is working correctly.
>
> So, can your -TV- get viruses from dem poan sites now?
Just a hunch: I doubt your tv is smart enough to pick up a virus. It's
not like it's much a computing platform. But writing one to your USB
Flash memory--that may be a different story.
Surely there is a reader who is wililng to tell me how wrong I am. : )
>
> --
> Live in the sunshine, swim the sea, drink the wild air
> -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
On 7/27/2011 9:45 AM, Bill wrote:
> Larry Jaques wrote:
>> So, can your -TV- get viruses from dem poan sites now?
>
> Just a hunch: I doubt your tv is smart enough to pick up a virus.
>
> Surely there is a reader who is wililng to tell me how wrong I am. : )
Well, if your TV is dumb enough to be a Windows PC, look for 100
viruses/day... Unix based, not so much, cause no one uses Unix TV's, no
one writes for those buggers:-)
--
Jack
Got Change ====> Now CHANGE it BACK!
http://jbstein.com
Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 05:51:30 -0400, Bill<[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> BTW, if you (anyone) hastn't tried camelcamelcamel.com, it's a great way
>> to view the price history of products you are interested in.
>
> I soon realized that they track everything you do in your browser and
> nixed it from my box. It slowed down the computer, too, which is how I
> caught that little quirk. (I wasn't on Amazon, either.)
How can they do that? Do you mean that they look at the cookies on my
computer if I visit their web site?
Bill
On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 12:13:30 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>On 7/20/2011 9:03 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 05:42:55 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Jul 20, 8:30 am, Larry Jaques<[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 06:45:53 -0500, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 7/19/2011 11:06 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>>>>> The full LED arrays compare to the energy inefficiency of the plamas.
>>>>>> Walk by either one from a couple feet and you can feel the heat.
>>>>
>>>>> I think you have your terminology mixed up. I personally have the old
>>>>> style LCD and the newer LED LCD screens. The LED LCD screen produces
>>>>> little to no heat after being on all day long and the lowest energy
>>>>> consumption of any regular LCD screen.
>>>>
>>>> You obviously bought an edgelit model. There are two types.http://hometheater.about.com/od/televisions/qt/ledlcdtvfacts.htm
>>>> I put my hand on a few sets while we were looking at TVs and the LCD
>>>> and edgelit LED LCD sets were barely over room temps. The full array
>>>> was close to the heat of the plasmas, and you could feel it on a bare
>>>> arm from a couple feet away while walking by. Shying away from the
>>>> heat (knowing it would cost her precious money) I didn't notice the
>>>> brand or model numbers. It was in Sears, though (against my advice not
>>>> to shop there.)
>>>>
>>> Musta been a mislabelled plasma.
>>
>> I don't think so. The plasmas all have glass (glaring crap) screens
>> and I believe this one had more of a matte screen.
>
>If you are shopping be careful to not rely on that to differentiate.
<g> Of course not.
>Many retailers will put a protective coating on the screens on both LCD
>and plasma screens as an add on to the sale. Those protective films
>come in glossy and matte finishes. Not saying that is what you saw but
>it is often hard to tell a plasma from an LCD. I have found that the
>sure fire way to tell is lift the corner, plasma sets are still damn
>heavy sets by comparison.
I didn't care, since the plasmas are all heaters. I won't buy one.
--
Always bear in mind that your own resolution to
succeed is more important than any one thing.
-- Abraham Lincoln
On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 06:45:53 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>On 7/19/2011 11:06 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>> The full LED arrays compare to the energy inefficiency of the plamas.
>> Walk by either one from a couple feet and you can feel the heat.
>
>I think you have your terminology mixed up. I personally have the old
>style LCD and the newer LED LCD screens. The LED LCD screen produces
>little to no heat after being on all day long and the lowest energy
>consumption of any regular LCD screen.
You obviously bought an edgelit model. There are two types.
http://hometheater.about.com/od/televisions/qt/ledlcdtvfacts.htm
I put my hand on a few sets while we were looking at TVs and the LCD
and edgelit LED LCD sets were barely over room temps. The full array
was close to the heat of the plasmas, and you could feel it on a bare
arm from a couple feet away while walking by. Shying away from the
heat (knowing it would cost her precious money) I didn't notice the
brand or model numbers. It was in Sears, though (against my advice not
to shop there.)
--
Progress is the product of human agency. Things get better because we
make them better. Things go wrong when we get too comfortable, when we
fail to take risks or seize opportunities.
-- Susan Rice
On Tue, 26 Jul 2011 22:41:57 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>On 7/26/2011 8:52 PM, Han wrote:
>> Puckdropper<puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> Bill<[email protected]> wrote in
>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> Yes, I read alot of reviews this week. That shifted my thinking from
>>>> the Samsung "7000" series (w/wi-fi, web browser, 240Hz) to the
>>>> Samsung "6000" series (ethernet connection but no wi-fi, 120 hz, no
>>>> web browser). I'm not enthused by 3D. This shift knocks about 1/3
>>>> off of the price, and I can add some of the extra features as "add
>>>> ons" when they are more "ready for prime time". Current web browsers
>>>> on TV appear to be a step back to dialup access (actually much worse
>>>> than that)!
>>>>
>>> *snip*
>>>
>>> If you want internet access on the TV, get one with a PC connector
>>> (It's a 15-pin D-style connector) or a PC with HDMI output. TVs are
>>> getting to be fancy monitors, so you won't get the fuzziness of
>>> picture like you would even 5 years ago.
>>>
>>> You can get internet access on the Wii, but it's really not that
>>> great.
>>>
>>> Puckdropper
>>
>> I get internet and internet services like Pandora& Netflix via my
>> blueray player, but since I depend on wifi and a Verizon router, it sucks
>> most of the time. I have to get an ethernet cable strung through the
>> basement from one end of the livingroom to the other<sh_t> ...
>
>I have a Samsung BluRay that is WiFi and I have pretty good internet
>Pandora, YouTube. You might want to check your internet speed, IIRC 6
>megabits is the least you want for streaming video and or make sure your
>router is not getting long in the tooth. You do not have to have an
>Ethernet connection if every thing else is working correctly.
So, can your -TV- get viruses from dem poan sites now?
--
Live in the sunshine, swim the sea, drink the wild air
-- Ralph Waldo Emerson
On 7/20/2011 8:55 AM, m II wrote:
> Baloney! White LEDs are not much more efficient than an incandescent
> bulb! White LEDs are not as efficient as the old fluorescent bulbs used
> in previous LCD sets. Manufacturer`s specs are with a bare element and
> the case and ballasts are never included in the specs.
>
> Any LED TV gets just as warm as the fluor sets but not nearly as warm as
> a plasma. Check you specs carefully and notice how it always claims
> ``after calibration`` which means only visible when dark.
Ok you are the expert, you have read something some where
gotten it all confused and believe you know it all.
I on the other hand actually have BACK- LIT florescent LCD and LED
back-lit LCD screens
and the fact that the LED set produce little to no heat compared to the
floresent LCD must be my imagination. I'll go with my imagination.
On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 07:55:07 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Jul 20, 9:55 am, "m II" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Baloney! White LEDs are not much more efficient than an incandescent bulb!
>> White LEDs are not as efficient as the old fluorescent bulbs used in
>> previous LCD sets. Manufacturer`s specs are with a bare element and the case
>> and ballasts are never included in the specs.
>Balast? On LED's?
PDFTFT
--
Always bear in mind that your own resolution to
succeed is more important than any one thing.
-- Abraham Lincoln
On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 05:51:30 -0400, Bill <[email protected]>
wrote:
>BTW, if you (anyone) hastn't tried camelcamelcamel.com, it's a great way
>to view the price history of products you are interested in.
I soon realized that they track everything you do in your browser and
nixed it from my box. It slowed down the computer, too, which is how I
caught that little quirk. (I wasn't on Amazon, either.)
--
Live in the sunshine, swim the sea, drink the wild air
-- Ralph Waldo Emerson
On Tue, 19 Jul 2011 21:16:47 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Jul 20, 12:06 am, Larry Jaques <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Jul 2011 20:04:58 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >On Jul 19, 10:32 pm, Steve <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> On 2011-07-17 20:18:07 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> said:
>>
>> >> > Evidently LED is now a winner over LCD and units connected to the
>> >> > Internet are on the way to becoming the norm (I was told Samsung was
>> >> > pushing by not introducing any other sort). Of course, from what I saw
>> >> > (keeps me on-topic) those sets are not ready for prime time, having
>> >> > merely a cell-phone type interface. I still don't have or want a cell
>> >> > phone.
>>
>> >> Bet they did not point out that the huge LED array generates
>> >> considerable heat. Adds to your air conditioning bill!
>>
>> >No they don't. Usually a quarter of similar size plasma, and less than
>> >a standard LCD with fluorescent backlight.
>>
>> The full LED arrays compare to the energy inefficiency of the plamas.
>> Walk by either one from a couple feet and you can feel the heat.
>>
>
>
>*buzzerrrr*
>
>CNET has charts.. on average (46") plasma 400watts, LCD 120watts,
>LEDLCD 105 watts, edgelit banana 3 watts
Cite,please. I defy you to show me a 46" TV which takes only 3W.
That's bullshit and you know it, Toy. Those are edgelit numbers.
Everyone know that you need to do a full backlight on a banana if you
want decent contrast, and that takes wattage.
--
Progress is the product of human agency. Things get better because we
make them better. Things go wrong when we get too comfortable, when we
fail to take risks or seize opportunities.
-- Susan Rice
On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 08:48:24 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>On 7/20/2011 7:30 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 06:45:53 -0500, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/19/2011 11:06 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>
>>>> The full LED arrays compare to the energy inefficiency of the plamas.
>>>> Walk by either one from a couple feet and you can feel the heat.
>>>
>>> I think you have your terminology mixed up. I personally have the old
>>> style LCD and the newer LED LCD screens. The LED LCD screen produces
>>> little to no heat after being on all day long and the lowest energy
>>> consumption of any regular LCD screen.
>>
>> You obviously bought an edgelit model.
>
>Nope, back lit. Relatively inexpensive. As thick or thicker than the
>other regular LCD screens in my house. And no noticeable heat.
OK, if you say so. I can't foolishly dispute an owner, can I?
I only read that one article which specified average power levels
between the two types before actually looking at TVs, but it made
sense. I think it was on About.com, a far-from-peer-reviewed site.
--
Always bear in mind that your own resolution to
succeed is more important than any one thing.
-- Abraham Lincoln
On Tue, 19 Jul 2011 22:32:34 -0400, Steve <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 2011-07-17 20:18:07 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> said:
>
>> Evidently LED is now a winner over LCD and units connected to the
>> Internet are on the way to becoming the norm (I was told Samsung was
>> pushing by not introducing any other sort). Of course, from what I saw
>> (keeps me on-topic) those sets are not ready for prime time, having
>> merely a cell-phone type interface. I still don't have or want a cell
>> phone.
>
>Bet they did not point out that the huge LED array generates
>considerable heat. Adds to your air conditioning bill!
LEDs are used in the backlight. LED TVs aren't mini-Jumbotrons. They use a
hell of a lot less electricity than does my 46" plasma (~500W).
On 7/20/2011 7:30 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 06:45:53 -0500, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
> wrote:
>
>> On 7/19/2011 11:06 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>
>>> The full LED arrays compare to the energy inefficiency of the plamas.
>>> Walk by either one from a couple feet and you can feel the heat.
>>
>> I think you have your terminology mixed up. I personally have the old
>> style LCD and the newer LED LCD screens. The LED LCD screen produces
>> little to no heat after being on all day long and the lowest energy
>> consumption of any regular LCD screen.
>
> You obviously bought an edgelit model.
Nope, back lit. Relatively inexpensive. As thick or thicker than the
other regular LCD screens in my house. And no noticeable heat.
There are two types.
> http://hometheater.about.com/od/televisions/qt/ledlcdtvfacts.htm
> I put my hand on a few sets while we were looking at TVs and the LCD
> and edgelit LED LCD sets were barely over room temps. The full array
> was close to the heat of the plasmas, and you could feel it on a bare
> arm from a couple feet away while walking by. Shying away from the
> heat (knowing it would cost her precious money) I didn't notice the
> brand or model numbers. It was in Sears, though (against my advice not
> to shop there.)
>
> --
> Progress is the product of human agency. Things get better because we
> make them better. Things go wrong when we get too comfortable, when we
> fail to take risks or seize opportunities.
> -- Susan Rice
On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 15:19:59 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Jul 21, 12:19 am, "[email protected]"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 18:15:00 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Jul 20, 9:10 pm, "[email protected]"
>> ><[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 23:20:06 +0100, Stuart <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >In article <[email protected]>,
>> >> > m II <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >> LEDs are current devices. Something has to absorb the excess voltage
>> >> >> when you control the current supply to it.
>>
>> >> >Nothing, absolutely nothing, in the set runs on 120V. An efficient
>> >> >switching regulator reduces your 120V, or 240V if you live elsewhere in
>> >> >the world, down to more useful voltages. Modern LED drivers also use
>> >> >switch mode technology to increase efficiency and reduce energy loss
>> >> >through heat to a minimum.
>>
>> >> The switching regulator is limiting the current. It's really an "electronic
>> >> ballast".
>>
>> >load=ballast. Check.
>>
>> No, current_limiting_device == ballast. It does the same thing as an
>> electronic ballast in a fluorescent fixture.
>
>Ballast = inductor (half a transformer... keeping it simple,
>remember?)
That is an example of a ballast, sure. That isn't the definition of a
ballast, though.
>NO LED circuit that I have ever seen used in backlit advertising signs
>has ever included a 'ballast' in the conventional sense. Choppers and
>resistors and diodes.... I know, all new technology to you... but it
>is not too late to learn.
You couldn't be more wrong. That series resistor *is* a ballast resistor. By
"chopper", I assume you mean switching regulator. If it's used to ballast an
LED, it's a ballast. ;-)
In case you hadn't forgotten, I'm a electronics design engineer, by day.
>Now, if you want to burrow into a quagmire of semantics, knock
>yourself out.
Nope. It's common usage.
>By your logic, if a ship drags an anchor it is 'ballast' as opposed to
>what 'ballast' really is.
Perhaps you're a sailor but I'm not claiming to be. I *am* an engineer,
though. The widget in series with a lamp to limit current, whatever it may
be, is called a "ballast". If it's a resistor, it's even called a "ballast
resistor".
On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 21:34:08 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Jul 22, 12:20 am, "[email protected]"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>> No end of discussion at all.
>
>Oh yes it is.
Obviously not.
On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 21:34:08 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Jul 22, 12:20 am, "[email protected]"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>> No end of discussion at all.
>
>Oh yes it is.
"IT'S ABOUT FUCKING TIME, TOY!" he stated, quietly.
--
Always bear in mind that your own resolution to
succeed is more important than any one thing.
-- Abraham Lincoln
On Jul 21, 6:29=A0pm, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 15:19:59 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy <[email protected]=
m>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Jul 21, 12:19=A0am, "[email protected]"
> ><[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 18:15:00 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy <counterfit...@gmail=
.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On Jul 20, 9:10 pm, "[email protected]"
> >> ><[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 23:20:06 +0100, Stuart <[email protected]> =
wrote:
> >> >> >In article <[email protected]>,
> >> >> > m II <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> >> LEDs are current devices. Something has to absorb the excess vol=
tage
> >> >> >> when you control the current supply to it.
>
> >> >> >Nothing, absolutely nothing, in the set runs on 120V. An efficient
> >> >> >switching regulator reduces your 120V, or 240V if you live elsewhe=
re in
> >> >> >the world, down to more useful voltages. Modern LED drivers also u=
se
> >> >> >switch mode technology to increase efficiency and reduce energy lo=
ss
> >> >> >through heat to a minimum.
>
> >> >> The switching regulator is limiting the current. It's really an "el=
ectronic
> >> >> ballast".
>
> >> >load=3Dballast. Check.
>
> >> No, current_limiting_device =3D=3D ballast. =A0It does the same thing =
as an
> >> electronic ballast in a fluorescent fixture.
>
> >Ballast =3D inductor (half a transformer... keeping it simple,
> >remember?)
>
> That is an example of a ballast, sure. =A0That isn't the definition of a
> ballast, though.
>
> >NO LED circuit that I have ever seen used in backlit advertising signs
> >has ever included a 'ballast' in the conventional sense. Choppers and
> >resistors and diodes.... I know, all new technology to you... but it
> >is not too late to learn.
>
> You couldn't be more wrong. =A0That series resistor *is* a ballast resist=
or. =A0By
> "chopper", I assume you mean switching regulator. =A0If it's used to ball=
ast an
> LED, it's a ballast. =A0;-)
>
> In case you hadn't forgotten, I'm a electronics design engineer, by day.
>
> >Now, if you want to burrow into a quagmire of semantics, knock
> >yourself out.
>
> Nope. =A0It's common usage.
>
> >By your logic, if a ship drags an anchor it is 'ballast' as opposed to
> >what 'ballast' really is.
>
> Perhaps you're a sailor but I'm not claiming to be. =A0I *am* an engineer=
,
> though. =A0The widget in series with a lamp to limit current, whatever it=
may
> be, is called a "ballast". =A0If it's a resistor, it's even called a "bal=
last
> resistor".
I have a 1 watt LED and I would like you to give me the part number
for a 'ballast' for it.
On Fri, 22 Jul 2011 04:34:56 -0700, Larry Jaques
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 21:34:08 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Jul 22, 12:20 am, "[email protected]"
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> No end of discussion at all.
>>
>>Oh yes it is.
>
>"IT'S ABOUT FUCKING TIME, TOY!" he stated, quietly.
He's wrong, but don't let that stop you either.
Yep....Unix is a virus:
Windows is a virus with a user interface.
On 7/27/2011 10:04 AM, m II wrote:
> (U)nix users acquire viruses all the time.
>
> They just can't tell the difference if they have one running or not.
>
> --------------
>
> "Jack Stein" wrote in message news:[email protected]... Well,
> if your TV is dumb enough to be a Windows PC, look for 100
> viruses/day... Unix based, not so much, cause no one uses Unix TV's, no
> one writes for those buggers:-)
>
It take a few more components than that. LEDs can't stand up to much PIV.
Your lack of electronics knowledge is showing but to use your oversimplified
analysis shows what a ballast could be composed of.
Calculate this 120 Vac across a 1K resistor. First of all your half-wave
rectifier will net you about 180 Vdc if smoothed by a cap. That's a ballast
loss of about 180 v squared / 1000 Ohms or 32.4 Watts of loss to run a half
Watt LED in YOUR ballast circuit. IT would not be done this way but I had
fun....LOL It would be done with high frequency inverter / P.S. and more
complex circuits.
Just wait until tonight when GW gets out of school and will straighten you
out. He knows everything! LOL
---------------
"Robatoy" wrote in message
news:58c64a06-d0d0-4967-9002-07c5d53968f1@m10g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
LED's are diodes. To power it from a 120vac source, one needs a small
200volt rated cap, a 1K resistor and another LED or diode. Period. No
farking ballasts. The cap smooths out the wave, the resistor stops the
LED from over voltage.
----------------
On Jul 20, 10:58 am, "m II" <[email protected]> wrote:
LEDs are current devices. Something has to absorb the excess voltage when
you control the current supply to it.
Basic woodworking 101.
Larry Jaques wrote:
>> Since our air-conditioner isn't keeping up with the heat Mother Nature
>> is dispensing, it occurred to me to take a trip to Frys Electronics to
>> see about upgrading our 16 year old Magnavox tv.
>
> That makes sense? Bad a/c = shopping for a new TV!
The AC has been running non-stop, and the thermostat has read 87 for
the last 3 hours, so I asked my wife to call "The Man" tomorrow morning.
Hopefully the thermostat is broken! ; )
>
>
>> Adding to what I learned while I was having some auto work done the
>> other day: Evidently LED is now a winner over LCD and units connected to
>> the Internet are on the way to becoming the norml
>
> Of course, from what I saw (keeps me on-topic) those sets are not ready for prime time, having
>> merely a cell-phone type interface.
>
> I have no idea what you saw, but it sure sounds weird.
>
There seem to be 2 main "Internet TVs" leading the way:
Samsung Smart TV and Sony's "Google TV". They even have Wi-Fi,
which opens up a pathway to your router. The "keyboard" on Samsung's
remote works like a cell-phones: Needing to push the 1 button three
times to enter a "C". A small "qwerty" remote is available on high-end
models or as an option.
The smart money probably sits this one out--at least until the day after
Thanksgiving...or even another year or more.
>> Of course, then there is audio. I saw some sound bars (they are bigger
>
> Sound bars? Forget it! The stereo separation sucks with them.
>
> Use a surround sound system, Bill. Even the cheapies add a real
> dimension to action/adventure movies. I bought that 5.1 Technics
> receiver 13 years ago and it still sounds good. 2 fronts, 2 rears, and
> the center channel speaker. The Bose 501s (fronts) kick out a pretty
> hefty bass so I didn't necessarily need the subwoofer. The little ESS
> bookshelf rears bring out the spacial effects, and the old 12" woofer
> from my parents' 50s stereo set into a Pioneer HPM-40 speaker
> enclosure fills in the center channel just fine.
Product reviews seem to be consistent with your comments about 5.1.
Can't have too many remote controls around, huh?
>
>> Anyone who can't tell the difference between a "need" and a "want" is at
>> a big disadvantage these days.
>
> Amen to that.
We don't have a working camera anymore (except on my wife's cell phone).
I've been looking at "point and shoot" ones. They had so many models at
Frys Electronics is was silly--old models and new models. I'll pick
one, eventually, based largely upon reviews. I need to build something
to shoot first!
>
>
>> At the end of the day I better appreciate the longevity of i'rn, the
>> peace that I find in good books, and visiting with you folks here.
>
> I'll second that! (now that twit filters handle the other 75%)
>
> P.S: Please don't misspell 'old arn' again, sir.
Sorry, about that. I need a spell-checker. I wonder if modern kids own
dictionaries?
Bill
Swingman wrote:
> On 7/17/2011 11:45 PM, Bill wrote:
>
>> The AC has been running non-stop, and the thermostat has read 87 for
>> the last 3 hours, so I asked my wife to call "The Man" tomorrow morning.
>> Hopefully the thermostat is broken! ; )
>
> Much better to have turned it off when that happens. If you know where
> the compressor is and can verify that it is running, turn the unit off
> immediately. By leaving it running you can almost guarantee yourself a
> bigger repair bill. Cause of symptom generally either a bad capacitor,
> low on freon, evaporator coils frozen, compressor bad.
Your first guess was right--bad capacitor. He installed a generic one of
the right size, and is coming back tomorrow with a "Carrier" branded
one. $264 including tax. I noticed online that those parts seem to go
for about $40, so next time I may have a go at it myself ("pull the
power, remove cover, simple swap". He said they normally last 5-7 years
and our unit is 10 years old. And yes, I DO have some idea what
capacitors are capable of! : ) Although I've never handled such a large
one (50.5 + 7.5). Probably still very tiny by Lew's standards.
>
> You will also want to check that your overflow pan is not stopped up.
Hmm.. I think ours goes through a pvc pipe directly down into the
sewer/drainage.
Thanks!
Bill
Robert Bonomi wrote:
> In article<[email protected]>,
> Larry Jaques<[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 Jul 2011 20:18:07 -0400, Bill<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Larry Jaques wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 17:35:29 -0500, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 7/10/2011 5:14 PM, Robatoy wrote:
>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/5tex8ts
>>>>>
>>>>> Commercial TV quickly morphed into a mindless wasteland, now that you
>>>>> pay for the privilege, it's a toxic dump.
>>>>
>>>> I'm much happier since I dumped DISH TV 5 years ago. I now watch only
>>>> the movies I like, with absolutely no commercials, and I save $50 a
>>>> month doing so. Netflix is cool. TV sucks the big one.
>>>>
>>>> Now, when I see a TV set on, I walk away. I couldn't stand what it
>>>> had become 5 years ago, but today it's 200% worse, at minimum. Feh!
>>>>
>>>> I'd rather be uninformed than "full-frontal-attack misinformed", TYVM.
>>>
>>> Since our air-conditioner isn't keeping up with the heat Mother Nature
>>> is dispensing, it occurred to me to take a trip to Frys Electronics to
>>> see about upgrading our 16 year old Magnavox tv.
>>
>> That makes sense? Bad a/c = shopping for a new TV!
>>
>
> Bad a/c ==> go somewhere with better a/c.
>
> makes sense to me!<grin>
>
> 'looking at new TVs' was just the 'excuse'.
Yes, you explained it perfectly. Info on tvs and cameras isn't exactly
valueless to me either. The bbq ribs eliminated making our situation
worse too--if you're going to sweat, you may as well not be hungry. We
ate outside where warm air seems more tolerable. : )
On 07/18/2011 11:45 AM, Bill wrote:
> Swingman wrote:
>> On 7/17/2011 11:45 PM, Bill wrote:
>>
>>> The AC has been running non-stop, and the thermostat has read 87 for
>>> the last 3 hours, so I asked my wife to call "The Man" tomorrow morning.
>>> Hopefully the thermostat is broken! ; )
>>
>> Much better to have turned it off when that happens. If you know where
>> the compressor is and can verify that it is running, turn the unit off
>> immediately. By leaving it running you can almost guarantee yourself a
>> bigger repair bill. Cause of symptom generally either a bad capacitor,
>> low on freon, evaporator coils frozen, compressor bad.
>
> Your first guess was right--bad capacitor. He installed a generic one of the right size, and
> is coming back tomorrow with a "Carrier" branded one. $264 including tax. I noticed online
> that those parts seem to go for about $40, so next time I may have a go at it myself ("pull
> the power, remove cover, simple swap". He said they normally last 5-7 years and our unit is
> 10 years old. And yes, I DO have some idea what capacitors are capable of! : ) Although I've
> never handled such a large one (50.5 + 7.5). Probably still very tiny by Lew's standards.
>
>
>>
>> You will also want to check that your overflow pan is not stopped up.
>
> Hmm.. I think ours goes through a pvc pipe directly down into the sewer/drainage.
>
> Thanks!
> Bill
Wow. I had a start capacitor go bad on a Trane compressor unit about 10 years ago and the
entire bill (service call, part, and labor) from one of the local Austin service companies
(Casa Mechanical) was about $60. I was quite pleased to pay that bill; I was worried it
would be much more.
--
Free bad advice available here.
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/
Larry Jaques wrote:
>> Product reviews seem to be consistent with your comments about 5.1.
>> Can't have too many remote controls around, huh?
>
> I thought 7.1 was the new standard this millennium.<shrug>
At least for computers, manufacturers seem to be going back to 2.1,
since few people are willing to wire 5.1 (or 7.1) properly. At least
that's how MaximumPC explains it, and it is consistent with market
offerings. I picked up Logitech Z5500 (5.1) speakers on sale from Dell
for about $200 about 5 or 6 years ago. They appear to be twice that now.
Mike Marlow wrote:
> Bill wrote:
>
>>
>> Your first guess was right--bad capacitor. He installed a generic one
>> of the right size, and is coming back tomorrow with a "Carrier"
>> branded one. $264 including tax.
>
> Bill - Why???? Certainly you understand that the logo'd cap is just a
> marketing scheme - don't you? You do understand that there is no
> difference - don't you?
No, not being in the business, I was clueless about that (it's hard to
keep up with all the "schemes" going around). I could tell the repairman
preferred not to come back since he said it would be $40 more if he came
back (even though he lives less than 3 miles away).
BTW, speaking of "schemes" my Comcast Triple Play introductory pricing
ran out this month. My bill was going to go up $40+taxes,etc. I phoned
them, acting a bit desperate about the increase, and they offered me a
higher level plan (for 12 months w/no contract) at an increase of $20
above the "introductory price" I had been getting. So a 10 minute phone
call got me a bit more for $20 a month less. I doubt they would mind me
sharing this information with you. If you are in a similar situation,
you might call and ask if they are offering any "specials".
>
>
>> I noticed online that those parts
>> seem to go for about $40, so next time I may have a go at it myself
>> ("pull the power, remove cover, simple swap". He said they normally
>> last 5-7 years and our unit is 10 years old. And yes, I DO have
>> some idea what capacitors are capable of! : ) Although I've never
>> handled such a large one (50.5 + 7.5). Probably still very tiny by
>> Lew's standards.
>
> And armed with this understanding, you are going to pay the Carrier price...
> why???
Because, on my feet, I wanted to make sure I got a good quality part.
In my limited experience, not all electrical components are created
equal. Until I asked, I didn't even know it was a capacitor and he
didn't volunteer the information. He would not even tell me the price
of the part (I asked about the division between parts and labor and he
said "the price was a package deal...and that it would make me mad if I
knew"). His priority seemed to be time (his phone rang 3 times while he
was here), mine was quality. We are supposed to have a 6 day "heat
wave" around here (mid Indiana) starting *tomorrow*!
Yes, next time around, I'll be able to check to see if the capacitor is
"split" myself. Before today, I was clueless about it. From what see
online, the price of the part is probably in the neighborhood of
$40--but that's not really all I payed him for. I paid attention.
Bill
Bill wrote:
> Yes, next time around, I'll be able to check to see if the capacitor is
> "split" myself. Before today, I was clueless about it. From what see
> online, the price of the part is probably in the neighborhood of
> $40--but that's not really all I payed him for. I paid attention.
It occurs to me now that before he started removing screws, he asked if
I would get him a hose. I directed my wife to wheel the hose around, and
I remained on my deck 6-8 feet behind him. The hose was to clean the
fins which had some mud on one side. He may have wished to conceal what
he was doing... ya never know.
>> We don't have a working camera anymore (except on my wife's cell phone).
>> I've been looking at "point and shoot" ones. They had so many models at
>> Frys Electronics is was silly--old models and new models. I'll pick
>> one, eventually, based largely upon reviews. I need to build something
>> to shoot first!
>
Larry Jaques wrote:
> Anything over $100 is likely to give you anything you want and do it
> well. Avoid the cheapies. They're truly horrible. I like Nikons.
> Older review: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/Q408budgetgroup/
> Last year's model is just as good but half the price.
If you are buying a camera at Amazon.com, you might wish to consider the
COLOR you choose. I thought this was sort of funny
Camera: Panasonic DMC-FP3
Prices (as of 2 days ago):
Dark Blue - $199
Red- $154
Silver - $109
Black - $94.99
Hopefully, the one I selected will do more than take B&W pictures...
(anyone remember those?). My last camera only yielded tintypes... ; )
Bill
On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 03:15:18 -0500, [email protected]
(Robert Bonomi) wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
>Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote:
>>On Sun, 17 Jul 2011 20:18:07 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Larry Jaques wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 17:35:29 -0500, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 7/10/2011 5:14 PM, Robatoy wrote:
>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/5tex8ts
>>>>>
>>>>> Commercial TV quickly morphed into a mindless wasteland, now that you
>>>>> pay for the privilege, it's a toxic dump.
>>>>
>>>> I'm much happier since I dumped DISH TV 5 years ago. I now watch only
>>>> the movies I like, with absolutely no commercials, and I save $50 a
>>>> month doing so. Netflix is cool. TV sucks the big one.
>>>>
>>>> Now, when I see a TV set on, I walk away. I couldn't stand what it
>>>> had become 5 years ago, but today it's 200% worse, at minimum. Feh!
>>>>
>>>> I'd rather be uninformed than "full-frontal-attack misinformed", TYVM.
>>>
>>>Since our air-conditioner isn't keeping up with the heat Mother Nature
>>>is dispensing, it occurred to me to take a trip to Frys Electronics to
>>>see about upgrading our 16 year old Magnavox tv.
>>
>>That makes sense? Bad a/c = shopping for a new TV!
>>
>
>Bad a/c ==> go somewhere with better a/c.
>
>makes sense to me! <grin>
>
>'looking at new TVs' was just the 'excuse'.
(Shhhhh! I was trying to see if he was using his feminine genes.)
--
Life is an escalator:
You can move forward or backward;
you can not remain still.
-- Patricia Russell-McCloud
On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 23:16:03 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 09:38:08 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:
>
>> I wait for those few (only 1/2 dozen in a _decade_? <sigh>) to come out
>> on DVD: House, Bones, CSI, NCIS, Justified, Fringe, etc.
>
>None of those appeal to me. I guess the last shows I can remember really
>enjoying regularly were Cheers, Frasier, All In The Family, Hill Street
>Blues, and of course M.A.S.H. And HSB was getting pretty bad in the last
>season.
>
>If you want to go back further I fondly recall The Avengers :-).
A good friend of mine watches all the "old stuff" on his FTA
sattelite dish. He says it's all on there somewhere just about any
time - you just need to know where to look.
On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 00:45:52 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>Larry Jaques wrote:
>
>>> Since our air-conditioner isn't keeping up with the heat Mother Nature
>>> is dispensing, it occurred to me to take a trip to Frys Electronics to
>>> see about upgrading our 16 year old Magnavox tv.
>>
>> That makes sense? Bad a/c = shopping for a new TV!
>
>The AC has been running non-stop, and the thermostat has read 87 for
>the last 3 hours, so I asked my wife to call "The Man" tomorrow morning.
>Hopefully the thermostat is broken! ; )
G'luck with that. ;)
>There seem to be 2 main "Internet TVs" leading the way:
>Samsung Smart TV and Sony's "Google TV". They even have Wi-Fi,
>which opens up a pathway to your router. The "keyboard" on Samsung's
>remote works like a cell-phones: Needing to push the 1 button three
>times to enter a "C". A small "qwerty" remote is available on high-end
>models or as an option.
>
>The smart money probably sits this one out--at least until the day after
>Thanksgiving...or even another year or more.
Indeed!
>Product reviews seem to be consistent with your comments about 5.1.
>Can't have too many remote controls around, huh?
I thought 7.1 was the new standard this millennium. <shrug>
>>> Anyone who can't tell the difference between a "need" and a "want" is at
>>> a big disadvantage these days.
>>
>> Amen to that.
>
>We don't have a working camera anymore (except on my wife's cell phone).
>I've been looking at "point and shoot" ones. They had so many models at
>Frys Electronics is was silly--old models and new models. I'll pick
>one, eventually, based largely upon reviews. I need to build something
>to shoot first!
Anything over $100 is likely to give you anything you want and do it
well. Avoid the cheapies. They're truly horrible. I like Nikons.
Older review: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/Q408budgetgroup/
Last year's model is just as good but half the price.
>> P.S: Please don't misspell 'old arn' again, sir.
>
>Sorry, about that.
NOT a biggie in the overall well-being of the universe, eh?
>I need a spell-checker. I wonder if modern kids own
>dictionaries?
The Wreck is your spell-checker. DAGS. Smart modern kids know this
and utilize it; dumb modern kids don't care.
--
Life is an escalator:
You can move forward or backward;
you can not remain still.
-- Patricia Russell-McCloud