|
|
 FAQ
 Search
 Memberlist
 Usergroups
 Register
 Profile
 Private messages
 Log in
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Dave Hardenbrook
Guest
|
 Posted: Sun Aug 27, 2006 12:16 pm Post subject: Odd PSU behavior? |
 |
|
I'm servicing a PC that got zapped by a power surge following a
neighborhood blackout. It killed the HDD, which is currently at a data
recovery center, but that's a subject for a different thread. Anyway,
while testing the rest of the system to test the functionality of other
components, I noticed something odd... When I provide power to the PSU,
either by plugging it into the surge protector or, switching on the PSU
switch, the system seems to come to life (the CPU and chassis fans start
spinning) for about a second then goes off again. The system can then
be booted up normally from the chassis power button. But this is the
first time I've ever seen an ATX system react (aside from flashing
lights on the keyboard or mobo) to the PSU being swtched on or plugged
in. Is this "normal" behavior for some ATX PSU's, or is it something to
be concerned about? Could it be connected to the power surge that
finished off the HDD?
--
Dave |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
Gerard Bok
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 27, 2006 4:33 pm Post subject: Re: Odd PSU behavior? |
|
|
On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 07:16:21 GMT, Dave Hardenbrook
<daveh47@mindspring.com> wrote:
| Quote: | I'm servicing a PC that got zapped by a power surge following a
neighborhood blackout. It killed the HDD, which is currently at a data
recovery center, but that's a subject for a different thread. Anyway,
while testing the rest of the system to test the functionality of other
components, I noticed something odd... When I provide power to the PSU,
either by plugging it into the surge protector or, switching on the PSU
switch, the system seems to come to life (the CPU and chassis fans start
spinning) for about a second then goes off again. The system can then
be booted up normally from the chassis power button. But this is the
first time I've ever seen an ATX system react (aside from flashing
lights on the keyboard or mobo) to the PSU being swtched on or plugged
in. Is this "normal" behavior for some ATX PSU's, or is it something to
be concerned about?
|
That's quite common behaviour.
But: if the surge was powerfull enough to kill the harddisk,
expect the rest of that PC to remain pretty unreliable.
--
Kind regards,
Gerard Bok |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
w_tom
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 27, 2006 9:28 pm Post subject: Re: Odd PSU behavior? |
|
|
Failing to power up the first time is abnormal behavior. However
without details, no one can do anything but wildly speculate. For
example, you don't know if that first power cycle is from something in
the power supply controller or something else in the power supply. Is
it powering up and down because power supply voltage starts excessively
or does not achieve proper voltage? Or is voltage monitoring circuit
measuring voltages too soon? You don't provide numbers, so the replies
will be nothing more than speculation.
Surges typically don't harm disk drives. If a surge did, then the
unit that should keep surges from happening AND contain other circuits
to quash surges did not do its job. That is the power supply. But
again, without further details such as what was damaged on that disk
drive, then we can only speculate.
One thing common to all replies. Excessive voltage, or voltage
monitor failure, or slow voltage startup, or disk drive hardware
failure - each would have a common problem within that power supply.
Without further data (at barest minimum, using the 3.5 digit
multimeter), then we can only speculate. Even the voltage response on
purple, gray and green wire from power supply to motherboard during
power up would report significant information.
A neighborhood blackout does not create surges and should never cause
any hardware failure inside a computer. A function that makes hardware
damage not possible (as even defined in Intel powe supply specs) is a
function sometimes missing in 'discounted' and 'dumped into the market'
power supplies.
Dave Hardenbrook wrote:
| Quote: | I'm servicing a PC that got zapped by a power surge following a
neighborhood blackout. It killed the HDD, which is currently at a data
recovery center, but that's a subject for a different thread. Anyway,
while testing the rest of the system to test the functionality of other
components, I noticed something odd... When I provide power to the PSU,
either by plugging it into the surge protector or, switching on the PSU
switch, the system seems to come to life (the CPU and chassis fans start
spinning) for about a second then goes off again. The system can then
be booted up normally from the chassis power button. But this is the
first time I've ever seen an ATX system react (aside from flashing
lights on the keyboard or mobo) to the PSU being swtched on or plugged
in. Is this "normal" behavior for some ATX PSU's, or is it something to
be concerned about? Could it be connected to the power surge that
finished off the HDD? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
w_tom
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 01, 2006 12:31 am Post subject: Re: Odd PSU behavior? |
|
|
SBFan2000 wrote:
| Quote: | You assume much! Many PC manufactures use crappy PSU to keep costs down and
I've seen much hardware damage because of it. Yes in the perfect PSU, ones
that are constructed properly you don't have issues. However, many PC
dealers both large and small use crap to keep costs down! I would hazard to
guess that a very great many PCs (probably at least 50%) are out there with
PSUs that are not going to properly protect hardware!
|
You have repaired how many computer power supplies by replacing
individual components inside? Therefore you know why damage happens?
I have. Those 'crappy PSUs' are mostly found in clone computers where
computer assemblers buy only on price and watts - don't demand
numerical specifications. Mainstream manufacturers do provide better
superior supplies.
I did not post by assuming. I repair things such as power supplies
only to learn why failures happen. And too often, I find others
claiming reasons for failure when they don't even know how to use an
oscilloscope nor understand how electricity works, nor understand how a
power supply works at the component level.
Meanwhile, let's look at the output from the computer grade UPS. 120
volts is really two 200 volt square waves with up to 270 volt spike
between those square waves. Why is that UPS acceptable? Because
computer power supplies even make crappier electricity from a computer
grade UPS irrelevant.
I did not assume anything. Been doing this stuff for too long. Have
found too many component failures falsely blamed on myths only because
that other only knows how to swap boxes and boards.
A first test to identify an inferior power supply: operate an AM
(longwave) radio adjacent to the computer. If computer causes
interference, then power supply quality is suspect. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SBFan2000
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 01, 2006 12:31 am Post subject: Re: Odd PSU behavior? |
|
|
You assume much! Many PC manufactures use crappy PSU to keep costs down and
I've seen much hardware damage because of it. Yes in the perfect PSU, ones
that are constructed properly you don't have issues. However, many PC
dealers both large and small use crap to keep costs down! I would hazard to
guess that a very great many PCs (probably at least 50%) are out there with
PSUs that are not going to properly protect hardware!
"w_tom" <w_tom1@usa.net> wrote in message
news:1157058428.820534.221080@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | Power supply makes damage from AC mains not possible. This assumes a
power supply is properly constructed. However if that internal
protection provided by a power supply is compromised, then other
hardware would also be damaged.
Not only does a power supply make such voltage transients irrelevant.
Supply also has other functions so that a power supply will not cause
computer hardware damage. But again, to sell power supplies at
discount prices, these required functions can be missing. Missing
functions inside a 'dumped' power supply could permit disk drive
hardware damage.
A brownout cannot cause wrong voltages with much ripple. Either the
supply must provide sufficient voltages or the power supply must
shutdown. And ripple 'spikes' that are destructive are also made
irrelevant by power supply functions (again assumes the power supply
did not cost less than $60 full retail).
Lower voltages with excessive ripple do not cause hardware damage.
Low voltage would cause a non-destructive (to hardware) crash. After
all, what does a power supply do when it powers down? The supply sees
a brownout as line voltages slowly diminish over many milliseconds. If
brownouts cause hardware damage, then powerdown also causes damage - in
all electronics.
How low must AC main voltage drop before a computer (properly
constructed) sees a brownout? Incandescent bulbs would be glowing at
less than 40% intensity. Even when incandescent bulbs only glow at
40%, the computer must work just fine. Again, industry standard
specifications require this.
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
read it again, Tom. he was talking about the initial burst when the
supply is connected to the AC line. Some supplies do this, till the + 5
VDC standby supply is stable, then it shuts the main supply down.
...
The hard drive is powered directly from the main power supply, so it
is possible to be damaged. I've had numerous items damaged from poorly
designed switchers, including the voltage regulator IC in monitor power
supplies. The switcher draws more input current at lower line
voltages. This increases the ripple to the switching regulator, and can
let spikes through to the load. Exceed the breakdown voltage and you
kill the ICs or short out tantalum capacitors.
...
A brownout can cause the supply to send the wrong voltages, with a
lot of ripple, as explained above
...
The hard drive is powered directly from the main power supply, so it
is possible to be damaged. I've had numerous items damaged from poorly
designed switchers, including the voltage regulator IC in monitor power
supplies. The switcher draws more input current at lower line
voltages. This increases the ripple to the switching regulator, and can
let spikes through to the load. Exceed the breakdown voltage and you
kill the ICs or short out tantalum capacitors.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Michael A. Terrell
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 10, 2006 11:41 pm Post subject: Re: Odd PSU behavior? |
|
|
w_tom wrote:
| Quote: |
Nothing posted in this reply is for Michael's benefit. This reply
provides the lurker with industry standards and facts - so that insults
and junk science reasoning are ignored.
|
Tell Intel that all the power supplies on the market don't meet their
requirements. The "junk science" is yours, in that you refuse to accept
that standards have, and do change over decades. You quote a "30 year"
figure. The only personal computers of that era used bulky linear power
supplies and the S-100 (MITS Altair), Exocisor (Motorola) or similar
industrial busses with 1 or 2 MHz processors on an eight bit buss. You
are insulting, yet you use the term on others. Can you say
"HYPOCRITE"? I know you're familiar with "TROLL".
--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.
Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Michael A. Terrell
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 11, 2006 12:39 am Post subject: Re: Odd PSU behavior? |
|
|
w_tom wrote:
| Quote: |
Nothing posted in this reply is for Michael's benefit. This reply
provides the lurker with industry standards and facts - so that insults
and junk science reasoning are ignored.
CBEMA in the 1970s
|
The references I se say early '80s, and that the CBEMA was replaced
by ITI in 1996.
<http://www.powerstandards.com/tutorials/sagsandswells.htm>
| Quote: | demanded that computers start up and work just
fine at 90 volts. In direct contradiction to Michael is this direct
quote from an Intel specification:
The power supply must be able to start up under peak loading at 90 VAC.
|
What Intel spec? All I have is what you claim they wrote, without
any context.
<http://www.intel.com/cd/channel/reseller/asmo-na/eng/tech_reference/box_desktop/int_inst_info/dsk_tested_source_lists/35815.htm>
Lists AcBel, as meeting their specs, and some of their power supplies
are specified at 110 volts to 115 Volts.
--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.
Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
w_tom
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 11, 2006 12:41 am Post subject: Re: Odd PSU behavior? |
|
|
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
| Quote: | Tell Intel that all the power supplies on the market don't meet their
requirements. The "junk science" is yours, in that you refuse to accept
that standards have, and do change over decades. You quote a "30 year"
figure. The only personal computers of that era used bulky linear power
supplies ...
|
But again Michael somehow knows only from personal observation. Some
technicians never eliminate that bad habit. Those with technical grasp
first learn facts and concepts. Meanwhile, back in the early 1970s, we
were using switching power supplies. No wonder these standards of 30+
years ago are unknown to Michael Terrel who must deny even using
insults.
Michael says that low voltage damaged his air conditioner motor.
That is proof (to him) that low voltage also damages electronics.
Again, he knows only from observation - classic junk science reasoning.
He has seen electrolytic capacitors explode during a brownout. Again,
observation alone proves low voltage damages electronics. He has seen
a motherboard damaged when a power supply electrolytic exploded.
Again, industry standards for power supplies make this not possible.
But Michael need not know facts. He saw. Therefore that must be an
acceptable failure.
Michael appears to use and find acceptable discounted power supplies
that are missing essential and industry required functions. His
observations are proof that all power supplies are built in violation
even of 30+ year old standards? In his world - yes. But that is
classic junk science reasoning.
A power supply whose label says it works even at 100 volts "barely
work at 105 volts". That is proof that power supplies need not work at
low voltage? Yes, in a world according to Michael. In reality, a
computer power supply must even work when incandescent bulbs are at
less than 40% intensity.
The lurker is cautioned about these types who routinely know - need
not first learn concepts, facts, and industry standards. Low voltage
must never damage electronics - as was standard even 30+ years ago. As
even defined on the industry chart (and ANSI/IEEE Std 446) with a
phrase in large letters:
Low voltage damages Michael's power supplies? A large and profitable
industry makes defective supplies for clone computer assemblers.
Supplies that are missing functions found standard even 30 years ago.
Michael sees defective power supplies fail and then assumes such
failures are normal. They are not. But then 'bean counter' type
computer experts are alive; posting even on the internet. Instead,
learn from those who were trained as an engineer, learned concepts,
underlying principles, technical facts, industry standards, and
apparently have many more decades of experience. If Michael had such
knowledge, then he knew we were using switching power supplies in the
early 1970s. Then he knew of industry standards that are that old and
that well established.
Low voltage does not damage power supplies. And power supplies must
also include functions so that motherboard and hard drive will not be
damaged. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Michael A. Terrell
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 11, 2006 2:54 am Post subject: Re: Odd PSU behavior? |
|
|
w_tom wrote:
| Quote: |
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Tell Intel that all the power supplies on the market don't meet their
requirements. The "junk science" is yours, in that you refuse to accept
that standards have, and do change over decades. You quote a "30 year"
figure. The only personal computers of that era used bulky linear power
supplies ...
But again Michael somehow knows only from personal observation. Some
technicians never eliminate that bad habit. Those with technical grasp
first learn facts and concepts. Meanwhile, back in the early 1970s, we
were using switching power supplies. No wonder these standards of 30+
years ago are unknown to Michael Terrel who must deny even using
insults.
Michael says that low voltage damaged his air conditioner motor.
That is proof (to him) that low voltage also damages electronics.
Again, he knows only from observation - classic junk science reasoning.
He has seen electrolytic capacitors explode during a brownout. Again,
observation alone proves low voltage damages electronics. He has seen
a motherboard damaged when a power supply electrolytic exploded.
Again, industry standards for power supplies make this not possible.
But Michael need not know facts. He saw. Therefore that must be an
acceptable failure.
Michael appears to use and find acceptable discounted power supplies
that are missing essential and industry required functions. His
observations are proof that all power supplies are built in violation
even of 30+ year old standards? In his world - yes. But that is
classic junk science reasoning.
A power supply whose label says it works even at 100 volts "barely
work at 105 volts". That is proof that power supplies need not work at
low voltage? Yes, in a world according to Michael. In reality, a
computer power supply must even work when incandescent bulbs are at
less than 40% intensity.
The lurker is cautioned about these types who routinely know - need
not first learn concepts, facts, and industry standards. Low voltage
must never damage electronics - as was standard even 30+ years ago. As
even defined on the industry chart (and ANSI/IEEE Std 446) with a
phrase in large letters:
No Damage Region
Low voltage damages Michael's power supplies? A large and profitable
industry makes defective supplies for clone computer assemblers.
Supplies that are missing functions found standard even 30 years ago.
Michael sees defective power supplies fail and then assumes such
failures are normal. They are not. But then 'bean counter' type
computer experts are alive; posting even on the internet. Instead,
learn from those who were trained as an engineer, learned concepts,
underlying principles, technical facts, industry standards, and
apparently have many more decades of experience. If Michael had such
knowledge, then he knew we were using switching power supplies in the
early 1970s. Then he knew of industry standards that are that old and
that well established.
Low voltage does not damage power supplies. And power supplies must
also include functions so that motherboard and hard drive will not be
damaged.
|
Tom, just keep kicking the crap out of your dead horse. Keep citing
out context snips from out of date references from groups that no longer
exist.
You still haven't answered what drugs you're on, after you accusing
me of being on drugs. I posted the list of what I have to take every
day. What are you afraid of?
Keep snipping anything you don't agree with, but whatever you do,
don't you ever learn anything up to date information.
Everyone knows that you'll keep trolling, till they have to pry the
keyboard out of your cold, dead hands.
--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.
Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mister
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 11, 2006 4:06 am Post subject: Re: Odd PSU behavior? |
|
|
No offense to anyone, but observation is sometimes the best way to
learn facts.
For example, if I stick my hand in an open flame and my hand gets
burned, I can then tell you what is going to happen if you to stick
your hand in an open flame. Also, while my hand is on fire, I can
also tell you that there is a lot of pain and you to will also
experience a lot of pain.
However, if you read a book on mind over matter, you would disagree
with me and say that I was completely wrong. You would say that
sticking my hand in an open flame would not do any harm to my hand,
nor would it hurt.
I have to terms to describe people, book smart and real world smart.
The book smart people believe everything they read in a book and do
not care if what they read is proved false by real world experience.
The real world smart people read the book, but also experience and
learn from their real world experience. They know the difference
between what is theory described as fact and what is real.
That is my 2 cents worth, now back to the regularly scheduled
argument.
By the way, I am writing a book about the government filling bees with
cyanide and also filling skunks with agent orange. They are going to
unleash these deadly insects and animals on innocent people to sting
and spray everyone.
If you believe that, I have more... Heh! Heh! Heh!
On 10 Sep 2006 12:41:47 -0700, "w_tom" <w_tom1@usa.net> wrote:
| Quote: | Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Tell Intel that all the power supplies on the market don't meet their
requirements. The "junk science" is yours, in that you refuse to accept
that standards have, and do change over decades. You quote a "30 year"
figure. The only personal computers of that era used bulky linear power
supplies ...
But again Michael somehow knows only from personal observation. Some
technicians never eliminate that bad habit. Those with technical grasp
first learn facts and concepts. Meanwhile, back in the early 1970s, we
were using switching power supplies. No wonder these standards of 30+
years ago are unknown to Michael Terrel who must deny even using
insults.
Michael says that low voltage damaged his air conditioner motor.
That is proof (to him) that low voltage also damages electronics.
Again, he knows only from observation - classic junk science reasoning.
He has seen electrolytic capacitors explode during a brownout. Again,
observation alone proves low voltage damages electronics. He has seen
a motherboard damaged when a power supply electrolytic exploded.
Again, industry standards for power supplies make this not possible.
But Michael need not know facts. He saw. Therefore that must be an
acceptable failure.
Michael appears to use and find acceptable discounted power supplies
that are missing essential and industry required functions. His
observations are proof that all power supplies are built in violation
even of 30+ year old standards? In his world - yes. But that is
classic junk science reasoning.
A power supply whose label says it works even at 100 volts "barely
work at 105 volts". That is proof that power supplies need not work at
low voltage? Yes, in a world according to Michael. In reality, a
computer power supply must even work when incandescent bulbs are at
less than 40% intensity.
The lurker is cautioned about these types who routinely know - need
not first learn concepts, facts, and industry standards. Low voltage
must never damage electronics - as was standard even 30+ years ago. As
even defined on the industry chart (and ANSI/IEEE Std 446) with a
phrase in large letters:
No Damage Region
Low voltage damages Michael's power supplies? A large and profitable
industry makes defective supplies for clone computer assemblers.
Supplies that are missing functions found standard even 30 years ago.
Michael sees defective power supplies fail and then assumes such
failures are normal. They are not. But then 'bean counter' type
computer experts are alive; posting even on the internet. Instead,
learn from those who were trained as an engineer, learned concepts,
underlying principles, technical facts, industry standards, and
apparently have many more decades of experience. If Michael had such
knowledge, then he knew we were using switching power supplies in the
early 1970s. Then he knew of industry standards that are that old and
that well established.
Low voltage does not damage power supplies. And power supplies must
also include functions so that motherboard and hard drive will not be
damaged. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
w_tom
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 11, 2006 8:50 am Post subject: Re: Odd PSU behavior? |
|
|
Mister wrote:
| Quote: | The book smart people believe everything they read in a book and do
not care if what they read is proved false by real world experience.
The real world smart people read the book, but also experience and
learn from their real world experience. They know the difference
between what is theory described as fact and what is real.
That is my 2 cents worth, now back to the regularly scheduled
argument.
|
One who read books and learned well proven industry standards also
has decades more experience. To know a fact, one must have both
fundamental knowledge including theory, concepts, and the many
underlying principles. And then one must also have experience.
Anything less creates wild speculation or junk science reasoning.
Notice that Michael assumed 1970 power supplies were big, heavy
linear supplies. And yet in the 1970s, we were even designing,
testing, and repairing switching power supplies. (Ever have an
electrolytic explode right in front of your face? Also an experience.)
One was working with technology that the other did not even know
existed. So which one has more experience?
Where does Michael's knowledge reside? He is a technician. He saw
damage and then assumed reality only from observation. Long before he
was even using power supplies and before the IBM PC existed, I was
working with switching power supplies at the design level - meeting
requirements long established by peers who had been doing it even
longer. We repeatedly suffered and learned from reality - what works
and why things fail. Technicians sent us the failures. We learned why
failures happened - and changed designs accordingly. So you tell me
which one learned concepts 30 years ago AND has experience so much
longer than Michael.
Mister - I am totally confused why that was not obvious. Michael
has so little experience as to not even know switching power supplies
were common in the 1970s. That should have been a damning fact. He is
a technician who knows how to fix things by replacing parts in proven
designs. He did not even know of Intel specifications that computer
supplies must meet. Those familiar with computer power supply design
and failure knows those specs. Why do you not see this for what it
really is - the speculator verses one with 'dirt under his
fingernails'? I am truly mystified. Why was that not obvious?
That is a straight forward and 'honest from the heart' question. Why
did you not see this discussion for what it is? Why was Michael's lack
of knowledge even about switching power supplies in the 1970s not an
irrefutable fact? Why was that not obvious? I am truly mystified.
What was that not obvious? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Michael A. Terrell
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 11, 2006 2:14 pm Post subject: Re: Odd PSU behavior? |
|
|
w_tom wrote:
| Quote: |
Mister wrote:
The book smart people believe everything they read in a book and do
not care if what they read is proved false by real world experience.
The real world smart people read the book, but also experience and
learn from their real world experience. They know the difference
between what is theory described as fact and what is real.
That is my 2 cents worth, now back to the regularly scheduled
argument.
One who read books and learned well proven industry standards also
has decades more experience. To know a fact, one must have both
fundamental knowledge including theory, concepts, and the many
underlying principles. And then one must also have experience.
Anything less creates wild speculation or junk science reasoning.
Notice that Michael assumed 1970 power supplies were big, heavy
linear supplies. And yet in the 1970s, we were even designing,
testing, and repairing switching power supplies. (Ever have an
electrolytic explode right in front of your face? Also an experience.)
One was working with technology that the other did not even know
existed. So which one has more experience?
Where does Michael's knowledge reside? He is a technician. He saw
damage and then assumed reality only from observation. Long before he
was even using power supplies and before the IBM PC existed, I was
working with switching power supplies at the design level - meeting
requirements long established by peers who had been doing it even
longer. We repeatedly suffered and learned from reality - what works
and why things fail. Technicians sent us the failures. We learned why
failures happened - and changed designs accordingly. So you tell me
which one learned concepts 30 years ago AND has experience so much
longer than Michael.
Mister - I am totally confused why that was not obvious. Michael
has so little experience as to not even know switching power supplies
were common in the 1970s. That should have been a damning fact. He is
a technician who knows how to fix things by replacing parts in proven
designs. He did not even know of Intel specifications that computer
supplies must meet. Those familiar with computer power supply design
and failure knows those specs. Why do you not see this for what it
really is - the speculator verses one with 'dirt under his
fingernails'? I am truly mystified. Why was that not obvious?
That is a straight forward and 'honest from the heart' question. Why
did you not see this discussion for what it is? Why was Michael's lack
of knowledge even about switching power supplies in the 1970s not an
irrefutable fact? Why was that not obvious? I am truly mystified.
What was that not obvious?
|
Nothing is obvious after a trip through the blender you use to
distort the facts.
Keep spinning your lies. Anyone that has read the entire thread
knows what kind of person you really are. You never answer questions,
you take things out of context, and you snip away any links that refute
your lies.
I'll bet that you're not man enough to look at the back of your
computer and tell us what the AC input voltage ranges are, because it
will prove you wrong. I have over 100 PCs right not, and not one of
them says it will work at 90 VAC.
I also see that you aren't hanging around the electronics newsgroups
after they showed you for what you are.
news:sci.electronics
news:sci.electronics.basics
news:sci.electronics.components
news:sci.electronics.design
news:sci.electronics.equipment
news:sci.electronics.misc
news:sci.electronics.repair
To "Mister": Be careful how you reply to this character, or you'll have
him following you around and telling lies about you, too.
--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.
Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mister
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 1:32 am Post subject: Re: Odd PSU behavior? |
|
|
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 09:14:56 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
| Quote: | To "Mister": Be careful how you reply to this character, or you'll have
him following you around and telling lies about you, too.
|
I used to be an elected official (politician). I would have guys like
this for lunch in a debate. I have a habit of leading a person down a
path of questions that would have them answer their own questionable
argument the way I see fit and then I would stomp on them. I found it
to be quite humorous, however the person(s) I did this to did not find
it so humorous and I quickly found out that you have no friends in
politics.
I just find it funny now to read some of the posts on here, especially
when one person continuously repeats so called facts. Sounds like a
broken record or a bad epsiode of Jerry Springer.
Just remember, no matter what you say, no matter what you do, no
matter what you prove, some mutherf'ers are always trying to ice skate
up hill. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Michael A. Terrell
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 7:16 am Post subject: Re: Odd PSU behavior? |
|
|
Mister wrote:
| Quote: |
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 09:14:56 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
To "Mister": Be careful how you reply to this character, or you'll have
him following you around and telling lies about you, too.
I used to be an elected official (politician). I would have guys like
this for lunch in a debate. I have a habit of leading a person down a
path of questions that would have them answer their own questionable
argument the way I see fit and then I would stomp on them. I found it
to be quite humorous, however the person(s) I did this to did not find
it so humorous and I quickly found out that you have no friends in
politics.
I just find it funny now to read some of the posts on here, especially
when one person continuously repeats so called facts. Sounds like a
broken record or a bad epsiode of Jerry Springer.
Just remember, no matter what you say, no matter what you do, no
matter what you prove, some mutherf'ers are always trying to ice skate
up hill.
|
Can you blame them, after they tried to mace the attack dogs? ;-)
Also, you need to remember that Jerry Springer was the Mayor of
Cincinnati, Ohio at one time.
I had my fun with a few of the politicians while working in the area.
One of the township trustees decided he was going to stop an Oxygen
Reduction plant from moving through their territory on a 4000 HP, 40
axle crawler with a top speed of five miles an hour, down hill. It had
federal, state and county approval, and would cut across the corner of
Delhi Township on an old barge road. The equipment was built in
England, brought to the US and up the Mississippi and Ohio rivers, to be
transferred to the crawler.
He said he was going to lay in front of it and make them stop. I
waited till the meeting was lover and asked if that wasn't about the
stupidest way in the world to commit suicide? He looked me in the eye
and said, The operator would be charged with murder! Everyone still in
the room got a good laugh and their lawyer had to explain to him that by
laying there it wasn't the operators fault, and since it was mostly down
hill not only would the charge not stick, but the company would end up
with all his assets for trying to damage their equipment. I laughed and
told him that even he wasn't stupid enough to lay there and die.
I get rather tired of people like him who can only make a claim to
fame by damming anyone in their way. If you want to find his other
silly rants, just search with his name and "Surge suppression",
"Grounding", or "Lightning" where he cuts and pastes himself into
countless corners.
--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.
Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Richard Freeman
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 7:40 am Post subject: Re: Odd PSU behavior? |
|
|
"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:45052901.9EE4EC3E@earthlink.net...
| Quote: | w_tom wrote:
Mister wrote:
The book smart people believe everything they read in a book and do
not care if what they read is proved false by real world experience.
The real world smart people read the book, but also experience and
learn from their real world experience. They know the difference
between what is theory described as fact and what is real.
That is my 2 cents worth, now back to the regularly scheduled
argument.
One who read books and learned well proven industry standards also
has decades more experience. To know a fact, one must have both
fundamental knowledge including theory, concepts, and the many
underlying principles. And then one must also have experience.
Anything less creates wild speculation or junk science reasoning.
Notice that Michael assumed 1970 power supplies were big, heavy
linear supplies. And yet in the 1970s, we were even designing,
testing, and repairing switching power supplies. (Ever have an
electrolytic explode right in front of your face? Also an experience.)
One was working with technology that the other did not even know
existed. So which one has more experience?
Where does Michael's knowledge reside? He is a technician. He saw
damage and then assumed reality only from observation. Long before he
was even using power supplies and before the IBM PC existed, I was
working with switching power supplies at the design level - meeting
requirements long established by peers who had been doing it even
longer. We repeatedly suffered and learned from reality - what works
and why things fail. Technicians sent us the failures. We learned why
failures happened - and changed designs accordingly. So you tell me
which one learned concepts 30 years ago AND has experience so much
longer than Michael.
Mister - I am totally confused why that was not obvious. Michael
has so little experience as to not even know switching power supplies
were common in the 1970s. That should have been a damning fact. He is
a technician who knows how to fix things by replacing parts in proven
designs. He did not even know of Intel specifications that computer
supplies must meet. Those familiar with computer power supply design
and failure knows those specs. Why do you not see this for what it
really is - the speculator verses one with 'dirt under his
fingernails'? I am truly mystified. Why was that not obvious?
That is a straight forward and 'honest from the heart' question. Why
did you not see this discussion for what it is? Why was Michael's lack
of knowledge even about switching power supplies in the 1970s not an
irrefutable fact? Why was that not obvious? I am truly mystified.
What was that not obvious?
Nothing is obvious after a trip through the blender you use to
distort the facts.
Keep spinning your lies. Anyone that has read the entire thread
knows what kind of person you really are. You never answer questions,
you take things out of context, and you snip away any links that refute
your lies.
I'll bet that you're not man enough to look at the back of your
computer and tell us what the AC input voltage ranges are, because it
will prove you wrong. I have over 100 PCs right not, and not one of
them says it will work at 90 VAC.
I also see that you aren't hanging around the electronics newsgroups
after they showed you for what you are.
news:sci.electronics
news:sci.electronics.basics
news:sci.electronics.components
news:sci.electronics.design
news:sci.electronics.equipment
news:sci.electronics.misc
news:sci.electronics.repair
|
Well I thought I had him run off aus.electronics for a while but he showed
up again like the bad stench he/she/it resembles - possibly something to do
with thefact that I had not posted there for a couple of months ....
| Quote: |
To "Mister": Be careful how you reply to this character, or you'll have
him following you around and telling lies about you, too.
|
Yep "Mister" I second that you generally cannot believe a claim that w_tom
makes as he generally tells Lies and makes outrageous and impossible claims
| Quote: | Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.
Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida
|
Hi Michael I was wondering why that half witted Moron w_tom was calling me
Michael on another Newsgroup (aus.electronics) now I know he is confusing me
with you I dont feel Insulted then ...... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
