[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Sat, 17 Dec 2016 11:32:46 -0600, Les Cargill
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:
On Sat, 17 Dec 2016 11:17:37 +0000, John Williamson
wrote:

On 17/12/2016 10:31, Don Pearce wrote:
I did a lot of work last year on switched-mode power supplies for
high reliability applications. The two manufacturers that came out at
the top of the list were Panasonic and Nichicon. Choose 125C
temperature rating and be attentive to ripple current. Also try not to
use the top ten percent of the voltage rating.

After that keep them as cool as possible, and you have a reliable,
long lasting setup.

All true, but it conflicts with the desire of makers and users to fit
the PSU into as small a space as possible. In my powered speakers, for
instance, there is minimal heat sinking and it's inside an unvented box
with the PA and the speakers, so keeping it cool is hard. In my portable
mixer, there is a size restriction on the power supply due to it having
to fit in a plug top, and so on...

I know, and it is such a shame that cost has to be such an enemy to
quality.

But it isn't. It's more that much of the retail channel is about
overwhelming People With Credit Cards into an impulse purchase.

Example: Main singer has a "floorbox" for his mic ( and acoustic
guitar ). Secondary singer wants to signal seriousness about singing;
buys one. Both will require considerable effort to improve over
nothing in a gain-before-feedback environment.

My spec was a minimum 7 years guaranteed lifetime and an
operating temperature range from -40 to +85C.

I have several pieces of domestic electronics that I opened on day one
and swapped the main bulk cap (the one that is a reservoir for the
rectified mains) as that is the most stressed one. In a few instances
I had to mount it a couple of inches away on leads.


Most of this stuff is designed to sit in a closet for most of its life.

When it comes to domestic electronics, all to frequently life means
long enough to pass the warranty window.

d

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[JackA]

On Friday, December 16, 2016 at 8:40:47 PM UTC-5, gray_wolf wrote:
On 12/16/2016 3:58 PM, Chuck wrote:
On Thu, 15 Dec 2016 08:18:05 -0800 (PST), JackA
wrote:

On Wednesday, December 14, 2016 at 10:37:08 PM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
On 15/12/2016 10:43 a.m., Nate Najar wrote:
On Wednesday, December 14, 2016 at 4:12:45 PM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
Surely there is a local electronic service outfit capable of
fault-finding what is likely to be a basic problem ?

if there is such an outfit, I haven't found one. There


But two failed at the same time ? Maybe check out some possible external
factor firs.
well, the one developed the whine a long time ago. the other developed a similar but not exactly the same whine very recently. and the HF thing is almost nearly a driver issue and is also fairly new. I've eliminated every external factor I can think of.....


OK not at same time. then.

Possibly aging capacitors, maybe in power supply section. If so likely
obvious to any service-tech worth his/her salt. Pro-audio, hi-fi, TV, etc

geoff

Maybe this is like Remastering phobia, where one person mentions capacitor aging, then the entire world does! Been involved with electronic most of my life, never really had issues with capacitors.

If there is feedback, I'd look at the loop that controls input signal to avoid output noise.

Jack

Of the electronic items that I have repaired for the last 20 years,
electrolytic capacitor problems have been the most common failure.


Mine too and I've been in the trade for 50+ years. I've replaced a ton
of the old wax paper caps with some good mylar also.

Old wax paper? Assume vacuum tube equipment.

Jack

[JackA]

On Friday, December 16, 2016 at 10:27:57 PM UTC-5, Trevor wrote:
On 17/12/2016 8:58 AM, Chuck wrote:
On Thu, 15 Dec 2016 08:18:05 -0800 (PST), JackA
wrote:
On Wednesday, December 14, 2016 at 10:37:08 PM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
Possibly aging capacitors, maybe in power supply section. If so
likely obvious to any service-tech worth his/her salt. Pro-audio,
hi-fi, TV, etc

Maybe this is like Remastering phobia, where one person mentions
capacitor aging, then the entire world does! Been involved with
electronic most of my life, never really had issues with
capacitors.

Of the electronic items that I have repaired for the last 20 years,
electrolytic capacitor problems have been the most common failure.

Yep, but since Jackass has never repaired anything, he thinks it's a myth..

What amazes me, is the size reduction of capacitors over the decades. I'm not talking about electronics, but power AC (220-660+V) applications. I estimate they have reduced to one quarter or their physical size! Maybe due to etching of aluminum (greater surface area), maybe better dielectrics.

Have some sodium-vapor lamps in shop. Guy doing maintenance told me a new bulb didn't fix the dead lamps. I went to work, hoping to find out why. A GE site gave me the hint!! Lamp had a 220V cap' in it, maybe 35mfd. We had some ancient 18mfd caps, why not use those? Wow, 660v even, they won't fail!! Put it on the test bench, paralleled a couple 18 mfds, and the 400W light lit! Why my boss values me, I save him money, used old stock, my logic is so darn good!

Share your repair stories!!

Jack


Trevor.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 12/17/2016 12:38 PM, Don Pearce wrote:
When it comes to domestic electronics, all to frequently life means
long enough to pass the warranty window.

Or when the battery no longer holds a charge.


--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Chuck[_11_]]

On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 17:14:09 -0800 (PST), JackA
wrote:

On Friday, December 16, 2016 at 5:31:56 PM UTC-5, Chuck wrote:
On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 07:48:51 +0000, John Williamson
wrote:

On 16/12/2016 03:52, Trevor wrote:
On 16/12/2016 2:39 AM, John Williamson wrote:
Are they of an age to have been caught in the Chinese capacitor problem?
A lot of makers got caught by that, even high end component suppliers
suffered from that.

Which is the shameful part. Real high end manufacturers only use high
quality components sourced from reliable suppliers, NOT the cheap
Chinese knock offs that caused all the problems.

A lot of them made it into places you'd not expect to see them. They
tested perfect when they were installed, it was only a couple of years
down the line the problems became apparent.


Rubycom and Elna electrolytic capacitors had a high failure rate for
years and they are considered good brands.

What type electronic equipment are you talking about, Chuck?

Jack



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Betacam recorders,televisions, profesional video and audio
processors, video downconverters, consumer and professional audio
amplifiers and distribution amplifiers, test equipment,cd players, dvd
players and recorders, studio video cameras, cassette players and
whatever else I have worked on. It really is extradinarily common
failure and I've been doing electronics repair professionally for 45
years.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Scott Dorsey]

Don Pearce wrote:
I have several pieces of domestic electronics that I opened on day one
and swapped the main bulk cap (the one that is a reservoir for the
rectified mains) as that is the most stressed one. In a few instances
I had to mount it a couple of inches away on leads.

Interestingly enough, on the gear I tend to work on those are the least
frequent caps in the switching supply to fail. It's probably a combination
of engineers knowing that they are the most stressed one and putting some
attention into avoidng the worst of the junk, and the fact that a lot of
the gear is designed for use on 240V mains as well as 120V, so the supply
caps are being run well below their maximum voltage rating when they are
used in the US.

On those supplies, the secondary filter caps and (for some weird reason)
the kickstart caps tend to be the major victims. However, I can certainly
believe that consumer electronics could be different.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[geoff]

On 18/12/2016 6:38 AM, Don Pearce wrote:


When it comes to domestic electronics, all to frequently life means
long enough to pass the warranty window.

...... by which time it is out of date anyway, as there is undoubtedly a
new fad or spec to follow ;-/

geoff

[geoff]

On 18/12/2016 7:35 AM, JackA wrote:
Lamp had a 220V cap' in it,
maybe 35mfd. We had some ancient 18mfd caps, why not use those? Wow,
660v even, they won't fail!! Put it on the test bench, paralleled a
couple 18 mfds, and the 400W light lit! Why my boss values me, I save
him money, used old stock, my logic is so darn good!

Jeepers 35,000 µF 200V ! That must have been huge.

geoff

[Trevor]

On 18/12/2016 5:30 PM, geoff wrote:
On 18/12/2016 6:38 AM, Don Pearce wrote:

When it comes to domestic electronics, all to frequently life means
long enough to pass the warranty window.

..... by which time it is out of date anyway, as there is undoubtedly a
new fad or spec to follow ;-/

Which is the intention of course for people with more money than sense.
(Apple especially have built their whole company on that philosophy with
no shortage of fans it seems)
However that's certainly not everyone.

Trevor.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On 17 Dec 2016 17:58:24 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:
I have several pieces of domestic electronics that I opened on day one
and swapped the main bulk cap (the one that is a reservoir for the
rectified mains) as that is the most stressed one. In a few instances
I had to mount it a couple of inches away on leads.

Interestingly enough, on the gear I tend to work on those are the least
frequent caps in the switching supply to fail. It's probably a combination
of engineers knowing that they are the most stressed one and putting some
attention into avoidng the worst of the junk, and the fact that a lot of
the gear is designed for use on 240V mains as well as 120V, so the supply
caps are being run well below their maximum voltage rating when they are
used in the US.

On those supplies, the secondary filter caps and (for some weird reason)
the kickstart caps tend to be the major victims. However, I can certainly
believe that consumer electronics could be different.
--scott

You are absolutely right about dual voltage supplies; that makes a
huge difference.

d

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Trevor]

On 18/12/2016 7:17 PM, Don Pearce wrote:
On 17 Dec 2016 17:58:24 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Don Pearce wrote:
I have several pieces of domestic electronics that I opened on day one
and swapped the main bulk cap (the one that is a reservoir for the
rectified mains) as that is the most stressed one. In a few instances
I had to mount it a couple of inches away on leads.

Interestingly enough, on the gear I tend to work on those are the least
frequent caps in the switching supply to fail. It's probably a combination
of engineers knowing that they are the most stressed one and putting some
attention into avoidng the worst of the junk, and the fact that a lot of
the gear is designed for use on 240V mains as well as 120V, so the supply
caps are being run well below their maximum voltage rating when they are
used in the US.

On those supplies, the secondary filter caps and (for some weird reason)
the kickstart caps tend to be the major victims. However, I can certainly
believe that consumer electronics could be different.

You are absolutely right about dual voltage supplies; that makes a
huge difference.


Yes sadly a BAD thing for us in 240V countries where Chinese equipment
is often designed for 110V/220V, and 240V is a real stress for it. :-(

Trevor.

[geoff]

On 19/12/2016 12:57 p.m., Trevor wrote:


Yes sadly a BAD thing for us in 240V countries where Chinese equipment
is often designed for 110V/220V, and 240V is a real stress for it. :-(

Trevor.



Being 'only' 230v I should be reassured with the 10v headroom ;-)

geoff

[JackA]

On Sunday, December 18, 2016 at 1:36:31 AM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
On 18/12/2016 7:35 AM, JackA wrote:
Lamp had a 220V cap' in it,
maybe 35mfd. We had some ancient 18mfd caps, why not use those? Wow,
660v even, they won't fail!! Put it on the test bench, paralleled a
couple 18 mfds, and the 400W light lit! Why my boss values me, I save
him money, used old stock, my logic is so darn good!

Jeepers 35,000 µF 200V ! That must have been huge.

Not 35k mfd., just 35 mfd.

Some of the most massive capacitors I've seen are used for high power car stereo where the battery needs help!!

Jack

geoff

[JackA]

On Sunday, December 18, 2016 at 7:48:00 PM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
On 19/12/2016 12:57 p.m., Trevor wrote:


Yes sadly a BAD thing for us in 240V countries where Chinese equipment
is often designed for 110V/220V, and 240V is a real stress for it. :-(

Trevor.



Being 'only' 230v I should be reassured with the 10v headroom ;-)

Since lots of electronic is now sold globally, DC switching power supplies can now operate at less than 100VAC to near or at 440VAC, without changing switches or touching a thing!

Jack

geoff

[geoff]

On 19/12/2016 2:32 p.m., JackA wrote:
On Sunday, December 18, 2016 at 1:36:31 AM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
On 18/12/2016 7:35 AM, JackA wrote:
Lamp had a 220V cap' in it,
maybe 35mfd. We had some ancient 18mfd caps, why not use those? Wow,
660v even, they won't fail!! Put it on the test bench, paralleled a
couple 18 mfds, and the 400W light lit! Why my boss values me, I save
him money, used old stock, my logic is so darn good!
Jeepers 35,000 µF 200V ! That must have been huge.
Not 35k mfd., just 35 mfd.


Again your gross ignorance is proudly displayed.

Um , mF is millifarad. Did you mean microfarad , as in 35uF, or more
correctly 35µF.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farad

geoff

[geoff]

On 19/12/2016 2:41 p.m., JackA wrote:
Since lots of electronic is now sold globally, DC switching power supplies can now operate at less than 100VAC to near or at 440VAC, without changing switches or touching a thing!



".... now sold globally" !

Wow.

geoff

[Trevor]

On 19/12/2016 1:33 PM, geoff wrote:
On 19/12/2016 2:41 p.m., JackA wrote:
Since lots of electronic is now sold globally, DC switching power
supplies can now operate at less than 100VAC to near or at 440VAC,
without changing switches or touching a thing!



".... now sold globally" !

Wow.

:-)

But what he doesn't realise of course is the caps on those supplies that
he thinks can operate at 440V, are often rated at 220-250v in a LOT of
Chinese equipment. Would hate to see what happens if it WAS connected to
440V! :-(

Trevor.

[JackA]

On Sunday, December 18, 2016 at 9:31:45 PM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
On 19/12/2016 2:32 p.m., JackA wrote:
On Sunday, December 18, 2016 at 1:36:31 AM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
On 18/12/2016 7:35 AM, JackA wrote:
Lamp had a 220V cap' in it,
maybe 35mfd. We had some ancient 18mfd caps, why not use those? Wow,
660v even, they won't fail!! Put it on the test bench, paralleled a
couple 18 mfds, and the 400W light lit! Why my boss values me, I save
him money, used old stock, my logic is so darn good!
Jeepers 35,000 µF 200V ! That must have been huge.
Not 35k mfd., just 35 mfd.


Again your gross ignorance is proudly displayed.

Um , mF is millifarad. Did you mean microfarad , as in 35uF, or more
correctly 35µF.

Snore.

Move along.

Jack


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farad

geoff

[JackA]

On Sunday, December 18, 2016 at 10:12:19 PM UTC-5, Trevor wrote:
On 19/12/2016 1:33 PM, geoff wrote:
On 19/12/2016 2:41 p.m., JackA wrote:
Since lots of electronic is now sold globally, DC switching power
supplies can now operate at less than 100VAC to near or at 440VAC,
without changing switches or touching a thing!



".... now sold globally" !

Wow.

:-)

But what he doesn't realise of course is the caps on those supplies that
he thinks can operate at 440V, are often rated at 220-250v in a LOT of
Chinese equipment. Would hate to see what happens if it WAS connected to
440V! :-(

So little electronics made in USA, these days! If China components were such a bad thing, China would have difficulty selling in US and elsewhere.

Another story about electronic and how Globally sold products makes servicing a pain. We have a "brake" for bending metal. It started acting up. I contacted the headquarters in US and asked for a schematic. Finally, they sent one and I went to work. Nothing seemed to make any sense, voltages all over the place. Later, after I talked to a "technician", he sent another schematic. Guess what, this had a DC control circuit, not AC as first schematic.

Safety regulations have to be satisfied world-wide, why so many variations of schematics (even one I had didn't match 100%). The culprit was a bad regulated DC supply, 24VDC, maybe 12A. Didn't really need such an elaborate DC supply, a brute force one would have worked.

Jack


Trevor.

[John Williamson]

On 19/12/2016 03:12, Trevor wrote:
But what he doesn't realise of course is the caps on those supplies that
he thinks can operate at 440V, are often rated at 220-250v in a LOT of
Chinese equipment. Would hate to see what happens if it WAS connected to
440V! :-(

Trevor.


The caps see over 400 volts DC anyway, as the input is via a bridge
rectifier, so peak input voltage is (230 (+10% to -5% * 1.414), ignoring
spikes...

Incidentally, UK mains voltage used to be specified as 240V +-5%, but is
now specified as 230V +10 -5%, so there has been no change since we
"unified" our voltages with Europe. Our sockets still tend to give
between 235 and 245 volts, according to my meters.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[John Williamson]

On 19/12/2016 05:53, JackA wrote:
On Sunday, December 18, 2016 at 9:31:45 PM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
On 19/12/2016 2:32 p.m., JackA wrote:
On Sunday, December 18, 2016 at 1:36:31 AM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
On 18/12/2016 7:35 AM, JackA wrote:
Lamp had a 220V cap' in it,
maybe 35mfd. We had some ancient 18mfd caps, why not use those? Wow,
660v even, they won't fail!! Put it on the test bench, paralleled a
couple 18 mfds, and the 400W light lit! Why my boss values me, I save
him money, used old stock, my logic is so darn good!
Jeepers 35,000 µF 200V ! That must have been huge.
Not 35k mfd., just 35 mfd.


Again your gross ignorance is proudly displayed.

Um , mF is millifarad. Did you mean microfarad , as in 35uF, or more
correctly 35µF.

Snore.

Move along.

So, a factor of 1000 is not important to you?

Getting these things right is important as if you get them wrong, bad
things happen.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[JackA]

On Saturday, December 17, 2016 at 5:15:30 PM UTC-5, Chuck wrote:
On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 17:14:09 -0800 (PST), JackA
wrote:

On Friday, December 16, 2016 at 5:31:56 PM UTC-5, Chuck wrote:
On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 07:48:51 +0000, John Williamson
wrote:

On 16/12/2016 03:52, Trevor wrote:
On 16/12/2016 2:39 AM, John Williamson wrote:
Are they of an age to have been caught in the Chinese capacitor problem?
A lot of makers got caught by that, even high end component suppliers
suffered from that.

Which is the shameful part. Real high end manufacturers only use high
quality components sourced from reliable suppliers, NOT the cheap
Chinese knock offs that caused all the problems.

A lot of them made it into places you'd not expect to see them. They
tested perfect when they were installed, it was only a couple of years
down the line the problems became apparent.


Rubycom and Elna electrolytic capacitors had a high failure rate for
years and they are considered good brands.

What type electronic equipment are you talking about, Chuck?

Jack



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Betacam recorders,televisions, profesional video and audio
processors, video downconverters, consumer and professional audio
amplifiers and distribution amplifiers, test equipment,cd players, dvd
players and recorders, studio video cameras, cassette players and
whatever else I have worked on. It really is extradinarily common
failure and I've been doing electronics repair professionally for 45
years.

Clearly, you have repaired more than I!!

Thanks.

Jack

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[JackA]

On Monday, December 19, 2016 at 7:13:36 AM UTC-5, John Williamson wrote:
On 19/12/2016 05:53, JackA wrote:
On Sunday, December 18, 2016 at 9:31:45 PM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
On 19/12/2016 2:32 p.m., JackA wrote:
On Sunday, December 18, 2016 at 1:36:31 AM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
On 18/12/2016 7:35 AM, JackA wrote:
Lamp had a 220V cap' in it,
maybe 35mfd. We had some ancient 18mfd caps, why not use those? Wow,
660v even, they won't fail!! Put it on the test bench, paralleled a
couple 18 mfds, and the 400W light lit! Why my boss values me, I save
him money, used old stock, my logic is so darn good!
Jeepers 35,000 µF 200V ! That must have been huge.
Not 35k mfd., just 35 mfd.


Again your gross ignorance is proudly displayed.

Um , mF is millifarad. Did you mean microfarad , as in 35uF, or more
correctly 35µF.

Snore.

Move along.

So, a factor of 1000 is not important to you?

If you and Geoff wish to act like idiots, you are doing a fine job.

Next, what, if I write C.P.S. rather than Hz., I'll be castrated?

"M" in MFD. has nothing to do as a [1000x] multiplier.
Lay off those drugs!

Jack

Getting these things right is important as if you get them wrong, bad
things happen.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Mon, 19 Dec 2016 15:31:26 +1300, geoff
wrote:

On 19/12/2016 2:32 p.m., JackA wrote:
On Sunday, December 18, 2016 at 1:36:31 AM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
On 18/12/2016 7:35 AM, JackA wrote:
Lamp had a 220V cap' in it,
maybe 35mfd. We had some ancient 18mfd caps, why not use those? Wow,
660v even, they won't fail!! Put it on the test bench, paralleled a
couple 18 mfds, and the 400W light lit! Why my boss values me, I save
him money, used old stock, my logic is so darn good!
Jeepers 35,000 µF 200V ! That must have been huge.
Not 35k mfd., just 35 mfd.


Again your gross ignorance is proudly displayed.

Um , mF is millifarad. Did you mean microfarad , as in 35uF, or more
correctly 35µF.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farad

geoff

Unfortunately 8-bit symbols don't propagate through a 7-bit text-only
news feed, so uF is the right way to put it here.

d

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[JackA]

On Monday, December 19, 2016 at 8:30:20 AM UTC-5, Don Pearce wrote:
On Mon, 19 Dec 2016 15:31:26 +1300, geoff
wrote:

On 19/12/2016 2:32 p.m., JackA wrote:
On Sunday, December 18, 2016 at 1:36:31 AM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
On 18/12/2016 7:35 AM, JackA wrote:
Lamp had a 220V cap' in it,
maybe 35mfd. We had some ancient 18mfd caps, why not use those? Wow,
660v even, they won't fail!! Put it on the test bench, paralleled a
couple 18 mfds, and the 400W light lit! Why my boss values me, I save
him money, used old stock, my logic is so darn good!
Jeepers 35,000 µF 200V ! That must have been huge.
Not 35k mfd., just 35 mfd.


Again your gross ignorance is proudly displayed.

Um , mF is millifarad. Did you mean microfarad , as in 35uF, or more
correctly 35µF.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farad

geoff

Unfortunately 8-bit symbols don't propagate through a 7-bit text-only
news feed, so uF is the right way to put it here.

If I search UF, uF, OR uf, nothing comes in an internet search related to capacitors. But, gee wiz, I search "MFD", up comes capacitors!! Even Wiki mentions MFD!

And if John and Geoff were actually serious, they'd claim I meant 1000(M) FD (Farads).

Okay, maybe you're just newbies to electronics. I am forgiving!



Jack


d

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[[email protected]]

Its nothing to argue about

Up to the early 60's

mfd = uF

mmfd = pF

don't feed the troll

m

[JackA]

On Monday, December 19, 2016 at 12:21:20 PM UTC-5, wrote:
Its nothing to argue about

Up to the early 60's

mfd = uF

mmfd = pF

-- Apologies accepted!!!

Jack


don't feed the troll

m

[geoff]

On 20/12/2016 2:30 AM, Don Pearce wrote:



Again your gross ignorance is proudly displayed.

Um , mF is millifarad. Did you mean microfarad , as in 35uF, or more
correctly 35µF.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farad

geoff

Unfortunately 8-bit symbols don't propagate through a 7-bit text-only
news feed, so uF is the right way to put it here.


Comes back to me here just fine as a 'mu' - Through Giganews with
Thunderbolt client.

geoff

[geoff]

On 20/12/2016 5:39 AM, JackA wrote:
is the right way to put it here.

If I search UF, uF, OR uf, nothing comes in an internet search related to capacitors. But, gee wiz, I search "MFD", up comes capacitors!! Even Wiki mentions MFD!

And if John and Geoff were actually serious, they'd claim I meant 1000(M) FD (Farads).

Okay, maybe you're just newbies to electronics. I am forgiving!



Jack Off


Only over 40 years.

Again, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farad

pF is picafarad ie 0.000000001 Farad
uF is microfarad ie 0.000001 Farad
mF is millifarad ie 0.001 Farad
F is Farad ie 1.0F
.... and you don't often get bigger than that.

This is not vague, there are no double meanings or alternative
legitimate views. Rarely some ancient electrolytics may have at one
point been erroneously labelled MFD meaning microfarad . These are and
always were WRONG.

I know there is no point in trying to enlighten Jack-off so I will bow
out of this thread now - but the above information may be of use tol
others who may be confused and actually want to learn.

geoff

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Tue, 20 Dec 2016 09:39:05 +1300, geoff
wrote:

On 20/12/2016 2:30 AM, Don Pearce wrote:



Again your gross ignorance is proudly displayed.

Um , mF is millifarad. Did you mean microfarad , as in 35uF, or more
correctly 35µF.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farad

geoff

Unfortunately 8-bit symbols don't propagate through a 7-bit text-only
news feed, so uF is the right way to put it here.


Comes back to me here just fine as a 'mu' - Through Giganews with
Thunderbolt client.

geoff

Depends on the route it takes. Since this is officially a text group,
properly administered routes will always strip off the top bit.

d

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Scott Dorsey]

geoff wrote:

Comes back to me here just fine as a 'mu' - Through Giganews with
Thunderbolt client.

That's the thing about Usenet... some links are 8-bit clean, some aren't.
You can't really count on high bit characters working, but often they do.
It depends entirely on your site and who is upstream of it.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On 19 Dec 2016 16:53:06 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

geoff wrote:

Comes back to me here just fine as a 'mu' - Through Giganews with
Thunderbolt client.

That's the thing about Usenet... some links are 8-bit clean, some aren't.
You can't really count on high bit characters working, but often they do.
It depends entirely on your site and who is upstream of it.
--scott

The plan is that 8-bit goes through to binary news groups, and is
stopped for non-binary. In part it's a security thing to stop nasty
stuff getting to people unnoticed.

d

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[JackA]

On Monday, December 19, 2016 at 3:49:14 PM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
On 20/12/2016 5:39 AM, JackA wrote:
is the right way to put it here.

If I search UF, uF, OR uf, nothing comes in an internet search related to capacitors. But, gee wiz, I search "MFD", up comes capacitors!! Even Wiki mentions MFD!

And if John and Geoff were actually serious, they'd claim I meant 1000(M) FD (Farads).

Okay, maybe you're just newbies to electronics. I am forgiving!



Jack Off


Only over 40 years.

Again, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farad

pF is picafarad ie 0.000000001 Farad
uF is microfarad ie 0.000001 Farad
mF is millifarad ie 0.001 Farad
F is Farad ie 1.0F
... and you don't often get bigger than that.

This is not vague, there are no double meanings or alternative
legitimate views. Rarely some ancient electrolytics may have at one
point been erroneously labelled MFD meaning microfarad . These are and
always were WRONG.

I know there is no point in trying to enlighten Jack-off so I will bow
out of this thread now - but the above information may be of use tol
others who may be confused and actually want to learn.

geoff

Face it, you became all flustered when I suggested you use "k" rather than "K".
This silly MFD vs uF is just payback.

Bye.

Jack

[Nate Najar]

I managed to repair them myself! Bad caps in the power supply. Same problem in both. 8 bucks in parts.

[geoff]

On 23/12/2016 2:41 PM, Nate Najar wrote:
I managed to repair them myself! Bad caps in the power supply. Same
problem in both. 8 bucks in parts.


Congrats . Were they obviously buldged out or leaking ?

geoff

[Nate Najar]

Not obviously leaking but close visual inspection showed they were.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 12/22/2016 8:41 PM, Nate Najar wrote:
I managed to repair them myself! Bad caps in the power supply. Same problem in both. 8 bucks in parts.

Good for you! Watch that soldering iron, though. Burnt fingers make it
hard to play guitar.


--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[geoff]

On 24/12/2016 2:37 AM, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 12/22/2016 8:41 PM, Nate Najar wrote:
I managed to repair them myself! Bad caps in the power supply. Same
problem in both. 8 bucks in parts.

Good for you! Watch that soldering iron, though. Burnt fingers make it
hard to play guitar.

..... and smell disconcertingly like KFC. Or is it the other way around ?

geoff

[JackA]

On Thursday, December 22, 2016 at 8:41:54 PM UTC-5, Nate Najar wrote:
I managed to repair them myself! Bad caps in the power supply. Same problem in both. 8 bucks in parts.

Sounds strange.

Jack