WIN98 SE Shutting down for no reason

[pjhjones]

I am running a WIN98 SE machine with a new hard drive installed about a week
ago.

For some reason every so often 15-20 minutes it automatically reboots on me.
No error message or anything, but when it reboots it acts like it was just
shut off and runs a scan disk. It is plugged in properly and is not just
losing power.

Also I am connected to a local network and every so often it tells me that
it has lost its network connection. I have to actually roboot to reconnect.
When I try and log off it acts like it is trying to log back on. Tries to
connect to the network and tells me that it can't. I reboot and can log on
just fine. My network cable is plugged in securly.

[Buffalo]

pjhjones wrote:
> I am running a WIN98 SE machine with a new hard drive installed about
> a week ago.
>
> For some reason every so often 15-20 minutes it automatically reboots
> on me. No error message or anything, but when it reboots it acts like
> it was just shut off and runs a scan disk. It is plugged in properly
> and is not just losing power.
>
> Also I am connected to a local network and every so often it tells me
> that it has lost its network connection. I have to actually roboot to
> reconnect. When I try and log off it acts like it is trying to log
> back on. Tries to connect to the network and tells me that it can't.
> I reboot and can log on just fine. My network cable is plugged in
> securly.

Since you see familar with the innards of the computer, shut it down and
remove and reseat the memory sticks several times.
Bad memory or poor contact by the memory stick contacts can cause many
similar problems.
This is easy to do and may be the problem.
There are many other reasons, but try this first.
While you're in there, clean out all the dust bunnies etc, esp around the
cpu heatsink/fan area.
The network problem is likely different.
Do you have any exclamation marks in Device Manager?
While you're waiting for more answers, you might want to scan your machine
for malware/spyware.
Try the following two free programs. No, they do not charge you anything to
clean what they find.
They are excellent products.
MalWareByte's AntiMalware (MBAM)
SuperAntiSpyware (SAS)
Dl,install, update and then run them one at a time. Keep running one until
it finds no more and then try the other one.
It usually helps if you delete your tmp files and your tempory internet
files and internet cookies before running them.
You get to choose which items you want them to fix.

[John Dulak]

pjhjones wrote:
> I am running a WIN98 SE machine with a new hard drive installed about a week
> ago.
>
> For some reason every so often 15-20 minutes it automatically reboots on me.
> No error message or anything, but when it reboots it acts like it was just
> shut off and runs a scan disk. It is plugged in properly and is not just
> losing power.
>
> Also I am connected to a local network and every so often it tells me that
> it has lost its network connection. I have to actually roboot to reconnect.
> When I try and log off it acts like it is trying to log back on. Tries to
> connect to the network and tells me that it can't. I reboot and can log on
> just fine. My network cable is plugged in securly.
>

pjhjones:

Such intermitent problems are often caused by some hardware component.
Try reseating everything in the case, make sure all fans and heat
sinks are functional and run a RAM test like Memtest86.

http://www.memtest86.com/download.html

HTH&GL

John

--
\\\||///
------------------o000----(o)(o)----000o----------------
----------------------------()--------------------------
'' Madness takes its toll - Please have exact change. ''

John Dulak - 40.4913ºN,79.904ºW - http://tinyurl.com/2qs6o6

[pjhjones]

I will check the memory sticks.

I do not have any exclamation marks in the device manager.
This computeris on GE's network so I do not believe that I have any
mal/spyware. Besides even if I wanted to run some free programs I wouldn't
have the privlages to download them anyways.

"Buffalo" wrote:

>
>
> pjhjones wrote:
> > I am running a WIN98 SE machine with a new hard drive installed about
> > a week ago.
> >
> > For some reason every so often 15-20 minutes it automatically reboots
> > on me. No error message or anything, but when it reboots it acts like
> > it was just shut off and runs a scan disk. It is plugged in properly
> > and is not just losing power.
> >
> > Also I am connected to a local network and every so often it tells me
> > that it has lost its network connection. I have to actually roboot to
> > reconnect. When I try and log off it acts like it is trying to log
> > back on. Tries to connect to the network and tells me that it can't.
> > I reboot and can log on just fine. My network cable is plugged in
> > securly.
>
> Since you see familar with the innards of the computer, shut it down and
> remove and reseat the memory sticks several times.
> Bad memory or poor contact by the memory stick contacts can cause many
> similar problems.
> This is easy to do and may be the problem.
> There are many other reasons, but try this first.
> While you're in there, clean out all the dust bunnies etc, esp around the
> cpu heatsink/fan area.
> The network problem is likely different.
> Do you have any exclamation marks in Device Manager?
> While you're waiting for more answers, you might want to scan your machine
> for malware/spyware.
> Try the following two free programs. No, they do not charge you anything to
> clean what they find.
> They are excellent products.
> MalWareByte's AntiMalware (MBAM)
> SuperAntiSpyware (SAS)
> Dl,install, update and then run them one at a time. Keep running one until
> it finds no more and then try the other one.
> It usually helps if you delete your tmp files and your tempory internet
> files and internet cookies before running them.
> You get to choose which items you want them to fix.
>
>
>

[Don Phillipson[_5_]]

"pjhjones" > wrote in message
...
> I am running a WIN98 SE machine with a new hard drive installed about a
week
> ago.
>
> For some reason every so often 15-20 minutes it automatically reboots on
me.
> No error message or anything, but when it reboots it acts like it was just
> shut off and runs a scan disk. It is plugged in properly and is not just
> losing power.
>
> Also I am connected to a local network and every so often it tells me that
> it has lost its network connection. I have to actually roboot to
reconnect.

Both symptoms suggest a failing power supply unit. These
are easy to replace and quite cheap (which is perhaps why
they do not last for ever. I needed to replace 3 in the last
25 years (i.e. 7 or 8 PCs.)

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

[Buffalo]

pjhjones wrote:
> I will check the memory sticks.
>
> I do not have any exclamation marks in the device manager.
> This computeris on GE's network so I do not believe that I have any
> mal/spyware. Besides even if I wanted to run some free programs I
> wouldn't have the privlages to download them anyways.
>
> "Buffalo" wrote:
Sounds good. I would still try removing and reseating the memory sticks.
Good Luck and I hope you get some good answers.
Buffalo

[glee]

Spontaneous restarts most often indicate a failing power supply unit.
--
Glen Ventura, MS MVP Windows, A+
http://dts-l.net/
http://dts-l.net/goodpost.htm


"pjhjones" > wrote in message
...
>I am running a WIN98 SE machine with a new hard drive installed about a week
> ago.
>
> For some reason every so often 15-20 minutes it automatically reboots on me.
> No error message or anything, but when it reboots it acts like it was just
> shut off and runs a scan disk. It is plugged in properly and is not just
> losing power.
>
> Also I am connected to a local network and every so often it tells me that
> it has lost its network connection. I have to actually roboot to reconnect.
> When I try and log off it acts like it is trying to log back on. Tries to
> connect to the network and tells me that it can't. I reboot and can log on
> just fine. My network cable is plugged in securly.
>

[98 Guy]

pjhjones wrote:

> This computer is on GE's network so I do not believe that I have
> any mal/spyware. Besides even if I wanted to run some free
> programs I wouldn't have the privlages to download them anyways.

I can't believe that a fortune 50 company would still be running win-98
on any of their internal PC's.

And please explain how your IT people configured your win-98 system such
that you don't have the "privileges" to run or install certain software.

[teebo]

> Both symptoms suggest a failing power supply unit. These

yeah do you now have 2 harddisks in that computer?
it is possible that your powersupplyunit isn't strong
enough to support both... remove the old disk....

[pjhjones]

I have back probed the power supply and believe that all my voltages are
acceptable. 5.02V 4.97V 11.90V -12.30V -5.02V

All fans are running and the temp inside the cabinet is not hot at all. Even
when I leave the door open I still have these problems. It appears to only
reboot when I am not using it. If I am working it may lock up on me, but when
I walk away for about 15-20 minutes and come back I might find that it has
shut down. (about 3 times today)

"glee" wrote:

> Spontaneous restarts most often indicate a failing power supply unit.
> --
> Glen Ventura, MS MVP Windows, A+
> http://dts-l.net/
> http://dts-l.net/goodpost.htm
>
>
> "pjhjones" > wrote in message
> ...
> >I am running a WIN98 SE machine with a new hard drive installed about a week
> > ago.
> >
> > For some reason every so often 15-20 minutes it automatically reboots on me.
> > No error message or anything, but when it reboots it acts like it was just
> > shut off and runs a scan disk. It is plugged in properly and is not just
> > losing power.
> >
> > Also I am connected to a local network and every so often it tells me that
> > it has lost its network connection. I have to actually roboot to reconnect.
> > When I try and log off it acts like it is trying to log back on. Tries to
> > connect to the network and tells me that it can't. I reboot and can log on
> > just fine. My network cable is plugged in securly.
> >
>
>

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message >,
pjhjones > writes:
>I have back probed the power supply and believe that all my voltages are
>acceptable. 5.02V 4.97V 11.90V -12.30V -5.02V

The precision of those suggests you are using a digital meter. Those
only update a few times a second (sometimes less than once a second for
very accurate ones); you need to look with an oscilloscope. If it _is_
the power supply that's the cause of the problem, then it is likely to
be dipping - at least to start with - only on demand peaks, such as when
a drive (disc or fan) kicks in, which won't show up on a digital meter.
(With a moving coil meter - i. e. one with an analogue pointer! - you
_might_ see such a dip.)

If you can borrow another PSU (of adequate rating), it probably is worth
trying it.
>
>All fans are running and the temp inside the cabinet is not hot at all. Even
>when I leave the door open I still have these problems. It appears to only
>reboot when I am not using it. If I am working it may lock up on me, but when
>I walk away for about 15-20 minutes and come back I might find that it has
>shut down. (about 3 times today)

Probably a silly question, but have you turned off the screensaver?
These can cause problems. Also any power-saving features - good for the
planet, but try turning them off if you have them turned on, just to see
if the problem goes away. Sorry if you've already done these.
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

"Bugger," said Pooh, feeling very annoyed.

[PCR]

pjhjones wrote:
| I am running a WIN98 SE machine with a new hard drive installed about
| a week ago.
|
| For some reason every so often 15-20 minutes it automatically reboots
| on me. No error message or anything, but when it reboots it acts like
| it was just shut off and runs a scan disk. It is plugged in properly
| and is not just losing power.

(1) Do you know how to get into BIOS Setup?
If so, check for a setting in there that may apply.

(2) "START button, Settings, Control Panel, Power Management"

Set the following (as -- who knows? -- one of them may be
malfunctioning &/or inherently antithetical to a permanent
internet connection)...

Power Schemes....... Always On.
System Standby....... Never.
Turn Off Monitor....... Never.
Turn Off Hard Disks... Never.

(3) "START button, Settings, Control Panel, Display, Screen Saver tab"

Maybe turn that off as well, or at least don't have it try to
perform a task (like virus checking) while the screen saver is
running.

| Also I am connected to a local network and every so often it tells me
| that it has lost its network connection. I have to actually roboot to
| reconnect. When I try and log off it acts like it is trying to log
| back on. Tries to connect to the network and tells me that it can't.
| I reboot and can log on just fine. My network cable is plugged in
| securly.

--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
Should things get worse after this,
PCR

[pjhjones]

I only have one hard drive installed.

"teebo" wrote:

>
> > Both symptoms suggest a failing power supply unit. These
>
> yeah do you now have 2 harddisks in that computer?
> it is possible that your powersupplyunit isn't strong
> enough to support both... remove the old disk....
>

[Buffalo]

pjhjones wrote:
> I only have one hard drive installed.
>
> "teebo" wrote:
>
>>
>>> Both symptoms suggest a failing power supply unit. These
>>
>> yeah do you now have 2 harddisks in that computer?
>> it is possible that your powersupplyunit isn't strong
>> enough to support both... remove the old disk....

Did you try removing and reseating the memory sticks? If you do, check all
connections on the various connectors, including the power one and the HDD
ones.

Perhaps something got jarred a little loose when the new HDD was installed.

Remove and reseat all cards also.
If nothing else helps, it probably is the PSU.
What I suggested only takes a matter of minutes usually and doesn't cost a
penny, if you can do it yourself.
Buffalo

[pjhjones]

I have removed the mother board and reseated the ram sticks. The contacts
looked good and upon inspection everything else looked good as well.
Everything is seated nice and tight.

I have set my power settings as to recommended in another responce for this.

Once I did this everything appeared to work fine for a bit. (About 30
minutes or so) Then it started freezing up again and rebooting. This computer
is in a panel and the hard drive is mounted about a foot or so away from the
rack so swaping that out would not have jarred anything loose.

I checked my power with a multimeter but I have been told that is not
exactly accurate and it may not update as fast as the the power may drop out
very quickly and come back faster then the multimeter can update. I am going
to purchase a new power supply and try that.

This can't be to difficult as every response I have recieved has indicated
about the same possible issues.

"Buffalo" wrote:

>
>
> pjhjones wrote:
> > I only have one hard drive installed.
> >
> > "teebo" wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>> Both symptoms suggest a failing power supply unit. These
> >>
> >> yeah do you now have 2 harddisks in that computer?
> >> it is possible that your powersupplyunit isn't strong
> >> enough to support both... remove the old disk....
>
> Did you try removing and reseating the memory sticks? If you do, check all
> connections on the various connectors, including the power one and the HDD
> ones.
>
> Perhaps something got jarred a little loose when the new HDD was installed.
>
> Remove and reseat all cards also.
> If nothing else helps, it probably is the PSU.
> What I suggested only takes a matter of minutes usually and doesn't cost a
> penny, if you can do it yourself.
> Buffalo
>
>
>

[Buffalo]

pjhjones wrote:
> I have removed the mother board and reseated the ram sticks. The
> contacts looked good and upon inspection everything else looked good
> as well. Everything is seated nice and tight.
>
> I have set my power settings as to recommended in another responce
> for this.
>
> Once I did this everything appeared to work fine for a bit. (About 30
> minutes or so) Then it started freezing up again and rebooting. This
> computer is in a panel and the hard drive is mounted about a foot or
> so away from the rack so swaping that out would not have jarred
> anything loose.
>
> I checked my power with a multimeter but I have been told that is not
> exactly accurate and it may not update as fast as the the power may
> drop out very quickly and come back faster then the multimeter can
> update. I am going to purchase a new power supply and try that.
>
> This can't be to difficult as every response I have recieved has
> indicated about the same possible issues.
>
> "Buffalo" wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> pjhjones wrote:
>>> I only have one hard drive installed.
>>>
>>> "teebo" wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Both symptoms suggest a failing power supply unit. These
>>>>
>>>> yeah do you now have 2 harddisks in that computer?
>>>> it is possible that your powersupplyunit isn't strong
>>>> enough to support both... remove the old disk....
>>
>> Did you try removing and reseating the memory sticks? If you do,
>> check all connections on the various connectors, including the power
>> one and the HDD ones.
>>
>> Perhaps something got jarred a little loose when the new HDD was
>> installed.
>>
>> Remove and reseat all cards also.
>> If nothing else helps, it probably is the PSU.
>> What I suggested only takes a matter of minutes usually and doesn't
>> cost a penny, if you can do it yourself.
>> Buffalo

Well, hopefully it will be the PSU.

[FromTheRafters[_2_]]

Swapping out the power supply is probably the best way to eliminate
that as the reason. An internally failing power supply filtering capacitor
could cause those symptoms, and not show up by using a multimeter.
Using an oscilloscope would be better, but intermittent problems have
a way of not showing themselves while you are looking. Some scopes
can take a picture when triggered by an event.

"pjhjones" > wrote in message
...
>I have removed the mother board and reseated the ram sticks. The contacts
> looked good and upon inspection everything else looked good as well.
> Everything is seated nice and tight.
>
> I have set my power settings as to recommended in another responce for
> this.
>
> Once I did this everything appeared to work fine for a bit. (About 30
> minutes or so) Then it started freezing up again and rebooting. This
> computer
> is in a panel and the hard drive is mounted about a foot or so away from
> the
> rack so swaping that out would not have jarred anything loose.
>
> I checked my power with a multimeter but I have been told that is not
> exactly accurate and it may not update as fast as the the power may drop
> out
> very quickly and come back faster then the multimeter can update. I am
> going
> to purchase a new power supply and try that.
>
> This can't be to difficult as every response I have recieved has indicated
> about the same possible issues.
>
> "Buffalo" wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> pjhjones wrote:
>> > I only have one hard drive installed.
>> >
>> > "teebo" wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >>> Both symptoms suggest a failing power supply unit. These
>> >>
>> >> yeah do you now have 2 harddisks in that computer?
>> >> it is possible that your powersupplyunit isn't strong
>> >> enough to support both... remove the old disk....
>>
>> Did you try removing and reseating the memory sticks? If you do, check
>> all
>> connections on the various connectors, including the power one and the
>> HDD
>> ones.
>>
>> Perhaps something got jarred a little loose when the new HDD was
>> installed.
>>
>> Remove and reseat all cards also.
>> If nothing else helps, it probably is the PSU.
>> What I suggested only takes a matter of minutes usually and doesn't cost
>> a
>> penny, if you can do it yourself.
>> Buffalo
>>
>>
>>

[MEB[_2_]]

Boy, I hope this isn't related to software or a hack....

--
MEB
Windows diagnostics/Security/Networking:
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
_ _
~~

[PCR]

pjhjones wrote:
| I have removed the mother board and reseated the ram sticks. The
| contacts looked good and upon inspection everything else looked good
| as well. Everything is seated nice and tight.
|
| I have set my power settings as to recommended in another responce
| for this.
|
| Once I did this everything appeared to work fine for a bit. (About 30
| minutes or so) Then it started freezing up again and rebooting.

Hmm. Too bad. While you are waiting for the power supply to arrive...

(1) "START, Programs, Accessories, System Tools, Scheduled Tasks"

That is the Task Scheduler. Is it running? If so, turn it off
using
the Advanced menu. When off, the first item in that menu should
say "Start Using Task Scheduler". Does the problem go away?
What in there was set to start every 30 minutes or so, then?
Definitely disable the Scandisk & Defrag items, if set to run when
the machine is idle. Anything else set that way?

(2) "START button, Run, MSInfo32, Software Environment,
Startup Programs"

Use the Edit Menu to select all, copy, & post it for inspection.

(3) Inspect your network connection settings, & report anything that
may appear to be questionable.

| This
| computer is in a panel and the hard drive is mounted about a foot or
| so away from the rack so swaping that out would not have jarred
| anything loose.
|
| I checked my power with a multimeter but I have been told that is not
| exactly accurate and it may not update as fast as the the power may
| drop out very quickly and come back faster then the multimeter can
| update. I am going to purchase a new power supply and try that.
|
| This can't be to difficult as every response I have recieved has
| indicated about the same possible issues.
|
| "Buffalo" wrote:
|
|>
|>
|> pjhjones wrote:
|> > I only have one hard drive installed.
|> >
|> > "teebo" wrote:
|> >
|> >>
|> >>> Both symptoms suggest a failing power supply unit. These
|> >>
|> >> yeah do you now have 2 harddisks in that computer?
|> >> it is possible that your powersupplyunit isn't strong
|> >> enough to support both... remove the old disk....
|>
|> Did you try removing and reseating the memory sticks? If you do,
|> check all connections on the various connectors, including the power
|> one and the HDD ones.
|>
|> Perhaps something got jarred a little loose when the new HDD was
|> installed.
|>
|> Remove and reseat all cards also.
|> If nothing else helps, it probably is the PSU.
|> What I suggested only takes a matter of minutes usually and doesn't
|> cost a penny, if you can do it yourself.
|> Buffalo

--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
Should things get worse after this,
PCR

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message >,
pjhjones > writes:
[]
>I checked my power with a multimeter but I have been told that is not
>exactly accurate and it may not update as fast as the the power may drop out
>very quickly and come back faster then the multimeter can update. I am going

That was me; certainly digital ones don't update nearly often enough
(connect one across a battery, then disconnecti it and notice the lag
before it reads zero), but even moving-coil meters won't really show a
dip that could still be long enough to upset a PC (a tenth of a second's
dip is still millions of processor clock cycles!).

>to purchase a new power supply and try that.

Hmm, well, try to borrow one (maybe from another PC) if you can, rather
than buying one, to start with. (Assuming the machine from which you
borrow it is working OK ...)
[]
I _could_ still be a software problem - there's so much going on in
Windows (and, these days, the alternatives like Linux, too) that it's
virtually impossible to be _sure_ that it isn't a software problem. But
borrowing a PSU is an easy thing to do. (Or buying one - they're
ridiculously cheap these days.)

Hope you find it (or it goes away).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

Old soldiers never die - only young ones

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message >,
pjhjones > writes:
[]
>I checked my power with a multimeter but I have been told that is not
>exactly accurate and it may not update as fast as the the power may drop out
>very quickly and come back faster then the multimeter can update. I am going

That was me; certainly digital ones don't update nearly often enough
(connect one across a battery, then disconnecti it and notice the lag
before it reads zero), but even moving-coil meters won't really show a
dip that could still be long enough to upset a PC (a tenth of a second's
dip is still millions of processor clock cycles!).

>to purchase a new power supply and try that.

Hmm, well, try to borrow one (maybe from another PC) if you can, rather
than buying one, to start with. (Assuming the machine from which you
borrow it is working OK ...)
[]
I _could_ still be a software problem - there's so much going on in
Windows (and, these days, the alternatives like Linux, too) that it's
virtually impossible to be _sure_ that it isn't a software problem. But
borrowing a PSU is an easy thing to do. (Or buying one - they're
ridiculously cheap these days.)

Hope you find it (or it goes away).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

Old soldiers never die - only young ones

[[email protected]]

On Dec 9, 11:16 am, pjhjones >
wrote:
> I checked my power with a multimeter but I have been told that is not
> exactly accurate and it may not update as fast as the the power may drop out
> very quickly and come back faster then the multimeter can update. I am going
> to purchase a newpower supplyand try that.

Power supplies do not fail that way. In fact, every power supply
must meet a spec that says how long AC power is lost - and the supply
still maintains all voltages in spec.

A power supply can cause intermittent computer crashes when voltages
are always defective. Defective even when the computer is working.
Yes, a perfectly defective power supply will still boot and run a
computer for months. How to detect a detective supply. Yes, the
multimeter. But only when the computer is using everything
simultaneously. IOW computer must play complex graphics (ie a movie)
while downloading from the internet, while playing sound, while
searching the hard drive, while reading a CD-Rom, while powering a USB
device while ... Only now is the computer ready to be measured by
the multimeter.

Were those numbers taken when all peripherals was operating
simultaneously? Only then are the numbers relevant. Voltages on any
one of orange, red, purple, and yellow wires must exceed 3.23, 4.87,
and 11.7 volts.

If in spec while under a full load, well, also measure voltages on
the green and gray wires both before and as the power switch is
pressed. Those numbers (and how it responds to a power switch) are
also telling. If all numbers are OK, then move on to other suspects.
Never again consider the supply 'system' as a reason for failure
because the meter meaurement under maximum load provides a definitive
answer. A multimeter answered without doubt.

Ignore speculations of problems that cannot exist. (If you buy
another supply, then also replace all other supply ‘system’
components.) Even swapping a supply cannot provide this 'definitive'
answer. Move on to other suspects or ask for technical instructions on
what to do next. The meter provides 'definitive' answers - no doubt -
if your measurements were taken under maximum load.

[[email protected]]

On Dec 9, 11:16 am, pjhjones >
wrote:
> I checked my power with a multimeter but I have been told that is not
> exactly accurate and it may not update as fast as the the power may drop out
> very quickly and come back faster then the multimeter can update. I am going
> to purchase a newpower supplyand try that.

Power supplies do not fail that way. In fact, every power supply
must meet a spec that says how long AC power is lost - and the supply
still maintains all voltages in spec.

A power supply can cause intermittent computer crashes when voltages
are always defective. Defective even when the computer is working.
Yes, a perfectly defective power supply will still boot and run a
computer for months. How to detect a detective supply. Yes, the
multimeter. But only when the computer is using everything
simultaneously. IOW computer must play complex graphics (ie a movie)
while downloading from the internet, while playing sound, while
searching the hard drive, while reading a CD-Rom, while powering a USB
device while ... Only now is the computer ready to be measured by
the multimeter.

Were those numbers taken when all peripherals was operating
simultaneously? Only then are the numbers relevant. Voltages on any
one of orange, red, purple, and yellow wires must exceed 3.23, 4.87,
and 11.7 volts.

If in spec while under a full load, well, also measure voltages on
the green and gray wires both before and as the power switch is
pressed. Those numbers (and how it responds to a power switch) are
also telling. If all numbers are OK, then move on to other suspects.
Never again consider the supply 'system' as a reason for failure
because the meter meaurement under maximum load provides a definitive
answer. A multimeter answered without doubt.

Ignore speculations of problems that cannot exist. (If you buy
another supply, then also replace all other supply ‘system’
components.) Even swapping a supply cannot provide this 'definitive'
answer. Move on to other suspects or ask for technical instructions on
what to do next. The meter provides 'definitive' answers - no doubt -
if your measurements were taken under maximum load.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message
>,
writes:
>On Dec 9, 11:16 am, pjhjones >
>wrote:
>> I checked my power with a multimeter but I have been told that is not
>> exactly accurate and it may not update as fast as the the power may drop out
>> very quickly and come back faster then the multimeter can update. I am going
>> to purchase a newpower supplyand try that.
>
> Power supplies do not fail that way. In fact, every power supply
>must meet a spec that says how long AC power is lost - and the supply
>still maintains all voltages in spec.

That's when it _is_ working properly though. (It's usually from half to
about five or ten mains cycles.)
>
> A power supply can cause intermittent computer crashes when voltages
>are always defective. Defective even when the computer is working.
>Yes, a perfectly defective power supply will still boot and run a
>computer for months. How to detect a detective supply. Yes, the
>multimeter. But only when the computer is using everything
>simultaneously. IOW computer must play complex graphics (ie a movie)
>while downloading from the internet, while playing sound, while
>searching the hard drive, while reading a CD-Rom, while powering a USB
>device while ... Only now is the computer ready to be measured by
>the multimeter.

Except that some parts of the computer - particularly things with motors
and solenoids, like drives - take power in sips that are shorter than
the response time of even a moving-coil meter. It could look OK, and yet
drop below the minimum for the tenth of a second or so that the drive
sucks hard, such as when spinning up, or moving its head(s).
[]
> Ignore speculations of problems that cannot exist. (If you buy
>another supply, then also replace all other supply ‘system’
>components.) Even swapping a supply cannot provide this 'definitive'

Indeed not. (However, if his system fairly consistently fails in half an
hour or less, and doesn't with a new supply fitted [assuming he's doing
more or less the same things], it's fairly _likely_ that the source/cure
has been found.)

>answer. Move on to other suspects or ask for technical instructions on
>what to do next. The meter provides 'definitive' answers - no doubt -
>if your measurements were taken under maximum load.

If it's a resettable minimum-reading meter, yes. Or an oscilloscope,
ideally a triggerable storage one.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

Being punctual makes people think you have nothing to do.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message
>,
writes:
>On Dec 9, 11:16 am, pjhjones >
>wrote:
>> I checked my power with a multimeter but I have been told that is not
>> exactly accurate and it may not update as fast as the the power may drop out
>> very quickly and come back faster then the multimeter can update. I am going
>> to purchase a newpower supplyand try that.
>
> Power supplies do not fail that way. In fact, every power supply
>must meet a spec that says how long AC power is lost - and the supply
>still maintains all voltages in spec.

That's when it _is_ working properly though. (It's usually from half to
about five or ten mains cycles.)
>
> A power supply can cause intermittent computer crashes when voltages
>are always defective. Defective even when the computer is working.
>Yes, a perfectly defective power supply will still boot and run a
>computer for months. How to detect a detective supply. Yes, the
>multimeter. But only when the computer is using everything
>simultaneously. IOW computer must play complex graphics (ie a movie)
>while downloading from the internet, while playing sound, while
>searching the hard drive, while reading a CD-Rom, while powering a USB
>device while ... Only now is the computer ready to be measured by
>the multimeter.

Except that some parts of the computer - particularly things with motors
and solenoids, like drives - take power in sips that are shorter than
the response time of even a moving-coil meter. It could look OK, and yet
drop below the minimum for the tenth of a second or so that the drive
sucks hard, such as when spinning up, or moving its head(s).
[]
> Ignore speculations of problems that cannot exist. (If you buy
>another supply, then also replace all other supply ‘system’
>components.) Even swapping a supply cannot provide this 'definitive'

Indeed not. (However, if his system fairly consistently fails in half an
hour or less, and doesn't with a new supply fitted [assuming he's doing
more or less the same things], it's fairly _likely_ that the source/cure
has been found.)

>answer. Move on to other suspects or ask for technical instructions on
>what to do next. The meter provides 'definitive' answers - no doubt -
>if your measurements were taken under maximum load.

If it's a resettable minimum-reading meter, yes. Or an oscilloscope,
ideally a triggerable storage one.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

Being punctual makes people think you have nothing to do.

[[email protected]]

On Dec 11, 7:27*pm, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
> wrote:
> Except that some parts of the computer - particularly things with motors
> and solenoids, like drives - take power in sips that are shorter than
> the response time of even a moving-coil meter. It could look OK, and yet
> drop below the minimum for the tenth of a second or so that the drive
> sucks hard, such as when spinning up, or moving its head(s).
>
> Indeed not. (However, if his system fairly consistently fails in half an
> hour or less, and doesn't with a new supply fitted [assuming he's doing
> more or less the same things], it's fairly _likely_ that the source/cure
> has been found.)

If using a moving coil meter, then measuring has completely violated
the diagnostic procedure. Measurements must be to three significant
digits which means a digital multimeter. No problem. Even Wal-Mart
sells them.

If that 'sipping' theory was correct, then all water pressure
disappears in town when network TV goes to commercial. Reality - the
reservoirs do not temporarily drop. I will not argue about what is
obvious. Microprocessors must go from less than one amp to demanding
tens of amps in microseconds. If a power supply is insufficient, the
meter will still identify that problem. Or to explain it in a sound
byte, a low pass filter and other 'system' designs makes your
assumptions irrelevant.

It is normal for a defective power supply to boot and run a computer
for months. Just one reason why shotgunning a power supply does not
prove anything definitive. Also normal is a perfectly good supply to
work in one system but not in another. Normal for other defective
'system' part to work just fine with one supply and not another - when
both supplies are perfectly good. All three can befuddle shotgunners,
but are easily and quickly understood and avoided when using a
multimeter. And when using a meter, then the few in the newsgroup who
really understand this stuff can now provide help. No numbers means
the best assistance is silenced.

Nobody needs a storage scope to test computer power supplies. When
doing design, an oscilloscope reports what is seen on a digital
multimeter and also reports information important at the design
level. A thousand dollar oscilloscope is a more useful tool when
doing power supply 'systems' and need not be a storage scope.. But
this is not a design discussion. This is a technician solving
problems in a well proven design, ASAP, and getting it done the first
time. Digital multimeters sold in Kmart, Lowes, and Wal-Mart are
even more that sufficient. Even shotgunning cannot solve problems as
fast or reliable.

First verify the entire supply 'system' is sufficient -
definitively. Only then more on to other suspects. Don't even waste
time looking back. A definitive answer is not possible by
shotgunning. Definitive answers require basic facts such as
numbers. Provided was how to get numbers, have a definitive answer,
add those supply components to a list of known good components, then
move on to other suspects. Accomplishment is measured by the length
of a ‘definitively known good’ list. This diagnostic procedure
demonstrates what is meant in CSI by, "Follow the evidence".

[[email protected]]

On Dec 11, 7:27*pm, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
> wrote:
> Except that some parts of the computer - particularly things with motors
> and solenoids, like drives - take power in sips that are shorter than
> the response time of even a moving-coil meter. It could look OK, and yet
> drop below the minimum for the tenth of a second or so that the drive
> sucks hard, such as when spinning up, or moving its head(s).
>
> Indeed not. (However, if his system fairly consistently fails in half an
> hour or less, and doesn't with a new supply fitted [assuming he's doing
> more or less the same things], it's fairly _likely_ that the source/cure
> has been found.)

If using a moving coil meter, then measuring has completely violated
the diagnostic procedure. Measurements must be to three significant
digits which means a digital multimeter. No problem. Even Wal-Mart
sells them.

If that 'sipping' theory was correct, then all water pressure
disappears in town when network TV goes to commercial. Reality - the
reservoirs do not temporarily drop. I will not argue about what is
obvious. Microprocessors must go from less than one amp to demanding
tens of amps in microseconds. If a power supply is insufficient, the
meter will still identify that problem. Or to explain it in a sound
byte, a low pass filter and other 'system' designs makes your
assumptions irrelevant.

It is normal for a defective power supply to boot and run a computer
for months. Just one reason why shotgunning a power supply does not
prove anything definitive. Also normal is a perfectly good supply to
work in one system but not in another. Normal for other defective
'system' part to work just fine with one supply and not another - when
both supplies are perfectly good. All three can befuddle shotgunners,
but are easily and quickly understood and avoided when using a
multimeter. And when using a meter, then the few in the newsgroup who
really understand this stuff can now provide help. No numbers means
the best assistance is silenced.

Nobody needs a storage scope to test computer power supplies. When
doing design, an oscilloscope reports what is seen on a digital
multimeter and also reports information important at the design
level. A thousand dollar oscilloscope is a more useful tool when
doing power supply 'systems' and need not be a storage scope.. But
this is not a design discussion. This is a technician solving
problems in a well proven design, ASAP, and getting it done the first
time. Digital multimeters sold in Kmart, Lowes, and Wal-Mart are
even more that sufficient. Even shotgunning cannot solve problems as
fast or reliable.

First verify the entire supply 'system' is sufficient -
definitively. Only then more on to other suspects. Don't even waste
time looking back. A definitive answer is not possible by
shotgunning. Definitive answers require basic facts such as
numbers. Provided was how to get numbers, have a definitive answer,
add those supply components to a list of known good components, then
move on to other suspects. Accomplishment is measured by the length
of a ‘definitively known good’ list. This diagnostic procedure
demonstrates what is meant in CSI by, "Follow the evidence".

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message
>,
writes:
[]
> If using a moving coil meter, then measuring has completely violated
>the diagnostic procedure. Measurements must be to three significant
>digits which means a digital multimeter. No problem. Even Wal-Mart
>sells them.

.. There is a difference between resolution and accuracy - especially at
the cheaper end of the market.
>
> If that 'sipping' theory was correct, then all water pressure
>disappears in town when network TV goes to commercial. Reality - the
>reservoirs do not temporarily drop. I will not argue about what is
>obvious. Microprocessors must go from less than one amp to demanding
>tens of amps in microseconds. If a power supply is insufficient, the
>meter will still identify that problem. Or to explain it in a sound
>byte, a low pass filter and other 'system' designs makes your
>assumptions irrelevant.

I know what a reservoir capacitor is: I am an electronic engineer! And
there's no way a DMM of the sort you are thinking of will show the
instantaneous variations in the supply (even if it could, you're not
going to be able to read it that fast). The only exception would be if
it was a min/max meter. Have you ever seen a power supply rail on an
oscilloscope, especially when the PC is pretty busy?
>
> It is normal for a defective power supply to boot and run a computer
>for months. Just one reason why shotgunning a power supply does not
>prove anything definitive. Also normal is a perfectly good supply to
>work in one system but not in another. Normal for other defective
>'system' part to work just fine with one supply and not another - when
>both supplies are perfectly good. All three can befuddle shotgunners,
>but are easily and quickly understood and avoided when using a
>multimeter. And when using a meter, then the few in the newsgroup who
>really understand this stuff can now provide help. No numbers means
>the best assistance is silenced.

I'm certainly not saying some readings might not be informative, only
that they won't be telling the whole story. And if you say a system is
going to work with one supply and not another, with both being
"perfectly good", then how is your meter going to help? Surely if one of
them reads low (or, for that matter, high) on your meter, they can't
both be "perfectly good".
>
> Nobody needs a storage scope to test computer power supplies. When
>doing design, an oscilloscope reports what is seen on a digital
>multimeter and also reports information important at the design
>level. A thousand dollar oscilloscope is a more useful tool when
>doing power supply 'systems' and need not be a storage scope.. But
>this is not a design discussion. This is a technician solving
>problems in a well proven design, ASAP, and getting it done the first
>time. Digital multimeters sold in Kmart, Lowes, and Wal-Mart are
>even more that sufficient. Even shotgunning cannot solve problems as
>fast or reliable.

Not sure what you mean by "shotgunning" - maybe this is a leftpondian
term? If you mean just trying one to see, I suspect the difference in
time needed between measuring all the rails on a power supply, and
changing over between two power supplies, is fairly small - there are
rather a lot of rails on the supplies these days. (I mean just plugging;
obviously if you undo and redo all the screws, swapping will take
longer.)
>
> First verify the entire supply 'system' is sufficient -

Agreed. And note that that's not always as easy as some might think:
unless you go for massive overkill, it isn't just a matter of total
power rating of the block: you have to figure out how much power is
needed on +12V, +5V, +3.3V, -12V (usually very little there), and so on,
and check the label on the side of the supply (or box or whatever) - not
all, say, 400W supplies split that 400W the same way.

>definitively. Only then more on to other suspects. Don't even waste
>time looking back. A definitive answer is not possible by
>shotgunning. Definitive answers require basic facts such as
>numbers. Provided was how to get numbers, have a definitive answer,
>add those supply components to a list of known good components, then
>move on to other suspects. Accomplishment is measured by the length
>of a ‘definitively known good’ list. This diagnostic procedure
>demonstrates what is meant in CSI by, "Follow the evidence".

Grissom wouldn't let you get away with ... a supply that supplied say
5.1 volts, with tenth-second dips to 3.9 say once a second, would
probably read pretty close to either 5.0 or 5.1 on your meter. Another
supply that supplied a constant 4.8 would be more likely to keep the
system running, even though it would appear marginal.

But I agree, measuring can highlight some problems, and - if you have
the tools, and as you say they're cheap enough - is certainly worth
doing: it can show without doubt some faulty supplies. If a supply reads
more than .25 volts high or low on either the 5 or the 3.3 volt lines,
it's definitely likely to be the cause of problems. (The +12 is less
critical, as it's mainly used for motors, and the -12 for serial port
driving, though errors there are probably still a sign of something not
right.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

Honi soit la vache qui rit.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message
>,
writes:
[]
> If using a moving coil meter, then measuring has completely violated
>the diagnostic procedure. Measurements must be to three significant
>digits which means a digital multimeter. No problem. Even Wal-Mart
>sells them.

.. There is a difference between resolution and accuracy - especially at
the cheaper end of the market.
>
> If that 'sipping' theory was correct, then all water pressure
>disappears in town when network TV goes to commercial. Reality - the
>reservoirs do not temporarily drop. I will not argue about what is
>obvious. Microprocessors must go from less than one amp to demanding
>tens of amps in microseconds. If a power supply is insufficient, the
>meter will still identify that problem. Or to explain it in a sound
>byte, a low pass filter and other 'system' designs makes your
>assumptions irrelevant.

I know what a reservoir capacitor is: I am an electronic engineer! And
there's no way a DMM of the sort you are thinking of will show the
instantaneous variations in the supply (even if it could, you're not
going to be able to read it that fast). The only exception would be if
it was a min/max meter. Have you ever seen a power supply rail on an
oscilloscope, especially when the PC is pretty busy?
>
> It is normal for a defective power supply to boot and run a computer
>for months. Just one reason why shotgunning a power supply does not
>prove anything definitive. Also normal is a perfectly good supply to
>work in one system but not in another. Normal for other defective
>'system' part to work just fine with one supply and not another - when
>both supplies are perfectly good. All three can befuddle shotgunners,
>but are easily and quickly understood and avoided when using a
>multimeter. And when using a meter, then the few in the newsgroup who
>really understand this stuff can now provide help. No numbers means
>the best assistance is silenced.

I'm certainly not saying some readings might not be informative, only
that they won't be telling the whole story. And if you say a system is
going to work with one supply and not another, with both being
"perfectly good", then how is your meter going to help? Surely if one of
them reads low (or, for that matter, high) on your meter, they can't
both be "perfectly good".
>
> Nobody needs a storage scope to test computer power supplies. When
>doing design, an oscilloscope reports what is seen on a digital
>multimeter and also reports information important at the design
>level. A thousand dollar oscilloscope is a more useful tool when
>doing power supply 'systems' and need not be a storage scope.. But
>this is not a design discussion. This is a technician solving
>problems in a well proven design, ASAP, and getting it done the first
>time. Digital multimeters sold in Kmart, Lowes, and Wal-Mart are
>even more that sufficient. Even shotgunning cannot solve problems as
>fast or reliable.

Not sure what you mean by "shotgunning" - maybe this is a leftpondian
term? If you mean just trying one to see, I suspect the difference in
time needed between measuring all the rails on a power supply, and
changing over between two power supplies, is fairly small - there are
rather a lot of rails on the supplies these days. (I mean just plugging;
obviously if you undo and redo all the screws, swapping will take
longer.)
>
> First verify the entire supply 'system' is sufficient -

Agreed. And note that that's not always as easy as some might think:
unless you go for massive overkill, it isn't just a matter of total
power rating of the block: you have to figure out how much power is
needed on +12V, +5V, +3.3V, -12V (usually very little there), and so on,
and check the label on the side of the supply (or box or whatever) - not
all, say, 400W supplies split that 400W the same way.

>definitively. Only then more on to other suspects. Don't even waste
>time looking back. A definitive answer is not possible by
>shotgunning. Definitive answers require basic facts such as
>numbers. Provided was how to get numbers, have a definitive answer,
>add those supply components to a list of known good components, then
>move on to other suspects. Accomplishment is measured by the length
>of a ‘definitively known good’ list. This diagnostic procedure
>demonstrates what is meant in CSI by, "Follow the evidence".

Grissom wouldn't let you get away with ... a supply that supplied say
5.1 volts, with tenth-second dips to 3.9 say once a second, would
probably read pretty close to either 5.0 or 5.1 on your meter. Another
supply that supplied a constant 4.8 would be more likely to keep the
system running, even though it would appear marginal.

But I agree, measuring can highlight some problems, and - if you have
the tools, and as you say they're cheap enough - is certainly worth
doing: it can show without doubt some faulty supplies. If a supply reads
more than .25 volts high or low on either the 5 or the 3.3 volt lines,
it's definitely likely to be the cause of problems. (The +12 is less
critical, as it's mainly used for motors, and the -12 for serial port
driving, though errors there are probably still a sign of something not
right.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

Honi soit la vache qui rit.

[marshtric]

I have back probed the power supply and believe that all my voltages are
acceptable. 5.02V 4.97V 11.90V -12.30V -5.02V

All fans are running and the temp inside the cabinet is not hot at all. Even
when I leave the door open I still have these problems. It appears to only
reboot when I am not using it. If I am working it may lock up on me, but when
I walk away for about 15-20 minutes and come back I might find that it has
shut down. (about 3 times today)

"glee" wrote:

Spontaneous restarts most often indicate a failing power supply unit.
--
Glen Ventura, MS MVP Windows, A+
http://dts-l.net/
http://dts-l.net/goodpost.htm


"pjhjones" wrote in message
...
I am running a WIN98 SE machine with a new hard drive installed about a week
ago.

For some reason every so often 15-20 minutes it automatically reboots on me.
No error message or anything, but when it reboots it acts like it was just
shut off and runs a scan disk. It is plugged in properly and is not just
losing power.

Also I am connected to a local network and every so often it tells me that
it has lost its network connection. I have to actually roboot to reconnect.
When I try and log off it acts like it is trying to log back on. Tries to
connect to the network and tells me that it can't. I reboot and can log on
just fine. My network cable is plugged in securly.




There might be viruses effiecting. first scan the entrire computer with an antivirus

[[email protected]]

On Dec 12, 6:48 pm, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
> wrote:
> But I agree, measuring can highlight some problems, and - if you have
> the tools, and as you say they're cheap enough - is certainly worth
> doing: it can show without doubt some faulty supplies. If a supply reads
> more than .25 volts high or low on either the 5 or the 3.3 volt lines,
> it's definitely likely to be the cause of problems. (The +12 is less
> critical, as it's mainly used for motors, and the -12 for serial port
> driving, though errors there are probably still a sign of something not
> right.)

The +12 volts is less critical even though used by the CPU. A CPU
power supply is why those microsecond demands for 10 amps can be
supplied, why the CPUs tend to be so much more resilient to power
variations, and probably makes CPUs more resilient to damage.

PSU fan often does not use +12 volts. -12 volt supply circuit
requires some minimal loading to be stable. Power supply fan often
operates on -12 volts to provide that minimally required loading.
Another reason why 12 volts was ignored is because serial ports will
even work fine when -12 volts drops to -5 volts and because a -12
volts drop is often obvious when the fan is not spinning.

A most important concept that shotgunners just do not grasp: a
defective power supply (that could have been identified using a
multimeter) can still boot and run a computer. Then that defect
causes computer failures months later.

Well, a meter will not detect failures such as missing overvoltage
circuits or missing RFI circuits. Those are why a minimally
acceptable power supply includes written manufacturer specs that claim
to provide those always required functions.

Meanwhile, the OP has a rebooting and freezing problem. He was
using techniques commonly promoted by the naive such as removing and
inspecting parts. Most all computer defects have no visual
indication. Best is to always identify a problem long before removing
or disconnecting anything. Best is to first built a list of what is
known good long before disconnecting or changing anything. Provided
was a shorter list of components that can cause the OP's problem.
Solution begins by eliminating items from that suspect list. Until a
power supply 'system' is "definitively known good", then all other
items can 'appear' defective. The very first subsystem to move from
"unknown" to the "definitively known good" list is that supply
'system'. The OP’s best option uses a 3.5 digit multimeter.

[[email protected]]

On Dec 12, 6:48 pm, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
> wrote:
> But I agree, measuring can highlight some problems, and - if you have
> the tools, and as you say they're cheap enough - is certainly worth
> doing: it can show without doubt some faulty supplies. If a supply reads
> more than .25 volts high or low on either the 5 or the 3.3 volt lines,
> it's definitely likely to be the cause of problems. (The +12 is less
> critical, as it's mainly used for motors, and the -12 for serial port
> driving, though errors there are probably still a sign of something not
> right.)

The +12 volts is less critical even though used by the CPU. A CPU
power supply is why those microsecond demands for 10 amps can be
supplied, why the CPUs tend to be so much more resilient to power
variations, and probably makes CPUs more resilient to damage.

PSU fan often does not use +12 volts. -12 volt supply circuit
requires some minimal loading to be stable. Power supply fan often
operates on -12 volts to provide that minimally required loading.
Another reason why 12 volts was ignored is because serial ports will
even work fine when -12 volts drops to -5 volts and because a -12
volts drop is often obvious when the fan is not spinning.

A most important concept that shotgunners just do not grasp: a
defective power supply (that could have been identified using a
multimeter) can still boot and run a computer. Then that defect
causes computer failures months later.

Well, a meter will not detect failures such as missing overvoltage
circuits or missing RFI circuits. Those are why a minimally
acceptable power supply includes written manufacturer specs that claim
to provide those always required functions.

Meanwhile, the OP has a rebooting and freezing problem. He was
using techniques commonly promoted by the naive such as removing and
inspecting parts. Most all computer defects have no visual
indication. Best is to always identify a problem long before removing
or disconnecting anything. Best is to first built a list of what is
known good long before disconnecting or changing anything. Provided
was a shorter list of components that can cause the OP's problem.
Solution begins by eliminating items from that suspect list. Until a
power supply 'system' is "definitively known good", then all other
items can 'appear' defective. The very first subsystem to move from
"unknown" to the "definitively known good" list is that supply
'system'. The OP’s best option uses a 3.5 digit multimeter.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message
>,
writes:
[]
>Another reason why 12 volts was ignored is because serial ports will
>even work fine when -12 volts drops to -5 volts and because a -12
>volts drop is often obvious when the fan is not spinning.

Outside the terms of this discussion, but yes, serial ports will
continue to _function_ with very low +/- supplies; the RS232 standard
(now superseded) specifies that they must _generate_ signals at
something like +/- 12, but continue to function when the signals they
_receive_ go down to something like +/- 3. Thus serial comm.s appear to
be continuing to work - and in fact are - with low supplies, though
they're not producing signals that are up to the specification. (The
spec. was designed so that communication could take place over _long_
lines.) One of the commonest interface devices - MAX232, AD232, and
clones and similar - which run from just a +5 supply, and use capacitive
switching to provide an inductorless solution, just by a combination of
inverting and doubling, actually only work on (about) +/- 10 volts.

(But there's little serial comm.s still in use in modern home PC systems
- at least, not using serial ports; most laptops now don't even have
them. Of course, USB, SATA etc. are serial, but don't use the +/- 12V
supplies.)
>
> A most important concept that shotgunners just do not grasp: a
>defective power supply (that could have been identified using a
>multimeter) can still boot and run a computer. Then that defect
>causes computer failures months later.

A multimeter will detect gross low (or high) voltage problems, and
certainly is worth using. It won't detect short-term dips/spikes (unless
it has a peak/low function).
>
> Well, a meter will not detect failures such as missing overvoltage
>circuits or missing RFI circuits. Those are why a minimally
>acceptable power supply includes written manufacturer specs that claim
>to provide those always required functions.

Agreed! (I can't think of _any_ way of detecting a missing overvoltage
circuit! At least not without going inside the power supply, which the
average punter should not be doing, on safety grounds.)
>
> Meanwhile, the OP has a rebooting and freezing problem. He was
>using techniques commonly promoted by the naive such as removing and
>inspecting parts. Most all computer defects have no visual
[]
>items can 'appear' defective. The very first subsystem to move from
>"unknown" to the "definitively known good" list is that supply
>'system'. The OP’s best option uses a 3.5 digit multimeter.

I try not to tell other people they are naive (or what the "best" option
is) - and also just because you can't see anything wrong, reseating
_can_ improve a connection. However, I would agree with you that
eliminating the power supply as the cause of the problem is a good
start, since obviously if it _is_ faulty, everything else will
malfunction. I'd also agree that checking with a meter is worth doing -
I just don't want people to assume that if a meter shows no problems,
the PSU is OK. Maybe that's where we misunderstood each other, as I
don't think you ever actually said that.

Rebooting/freezing - from experience, I'd say that if due to hardware,
the PSU and RAM are the most likely sources (with RAM sometimes not
itself faulty but needing a reseating), but the probability of it not
being a hardware problem is also high - especially if it happens after a
period of inactivity, when it's likely to be a misbehaving screensaver
(my first choice), or a powersaving setting that's not implemented
properly on the hardware combination in question (mobo, graphics card,
drives, ...).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

Honi soit la vache qui rit.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message
>,
writes:
[]
>Another reason why 12 volts was ignored is because serial ports will
>even work fine when -12 volts drops to -5 volts and because a -12
>volts drop is often obvious when the fan is not spinning.

Outside the terms of this discussion, but yes, serial ports will
continue to _function_ with very low +/- supplies; the RS232 standard
(now superseded) specifies that they must _generate_ signals at
something like +/- 12, but continue to function when the signals they
_receive_ go down to something like +/- 3. Thus serial comm.s appear to
be continuing to work - and in fact are - with low supplies, though
they're not producing signals that are up to the specification. (The
spec. was designed so that communication could take place over _long_
lines.) One of the commonest interface devices - MAX232, AD232, and
clones and similar - which run from just a +5 supply, and use capacitive
switching to provide an inductorless solution, just by a combination of
inverting and doubling, actually only work on (about) +/- 10 volts.

(But there's little serial comm.s still in use in modern home PC systems
- at least, not using serial ports; most laptops now don't even have
them. Of course, USB, SATA etc. are serial, but don't use the +/- 12V
supplies.)
>
> A most important concept that shotgunners just do not grasp: a
>defective power supply (that could have been identified using a
>multimeter) can still boot and run a computer. Then that defect
>causes computer failures months later.

A multimeter will detect gross low (or high) voltage problems, and
certainly is worth using. It won't detect short-term dips/spikes (unless
it has a peak/low function).
>
> Well, a meter will not detect failures such as missing overvoltage
>circuits or missing RFI circuits. Those are why a minimally
>acceptable power supply includes written manufacturer specs that claim
>to provide those always required functions.

Agreed! (I can't think of _any_ way of detecting a missing overvoltage
circuit! At least not without going inside the power supply, which the
average punter should not be doing, on safety grounds.)
>
> Meanwhile, the OP has a rebooting and freezing problem. He was
>using techniques commonly promoted by the naive such as removing and
>inspecting parts. Most all computer defects have no visual
[]
>items can 'appear' defective. The very first subsystem to move from
>"unknown" to the "definitively known good" list is that supply
>'system'. The OP’s best option uses a 3.5 digit multimeter.

I try not to tell other people they are naive (or what the "best" option
is) - and also just because you can't see anything wrong, reseating
_can_ improve a connection. However, I would agree with you that
eliminating the power supply as the cause of the problem is a good
start, since obviously if it _is_ faulty, everything else will
malfunction. I'd also agree that checking with a meter is worth doing -
I just don't want people to assume that if a meter shows no problems,
the PSU is OK. Maybe that's where we misunderstood each other, as I
don't think you ever actually said that.

Rebooting/freezing - from experience, I'd say that if due to hardware,
the PSU and RAM are the most likely sources (with RAM sometimes not
itself faulty but needing a reseating), but the probability of it not
being a hardware problem is also high - especially if it happens after a
period of inactivity, when it's likely to be a misbehaving screensaver
(my first choice), or a powersaving setting that's not implemented
properly on the hardware combination in question (mobo, graphics card,
drives, ...).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

Honi soit la vache qui rit.

[[email protected]]

On Dec 13, 4:39*am, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
> wrote:
> A multimeter will detect gross low (or high) voltage problems, and
> certainly is worth using. It won't detect short-term dips/spikes (unless
> it has a peak/low function).

Again, reasoning assumes resevoirs empty during every network TV
commericials. The metaphor still remains, is accurate, and describes
why a multimeter routinely gets definitive (without any doubt)
answers. We who did this stuff professionally saw a multimeter
routinely detect supply problems most every time. Voltages don't drop
as described because that voltage is provided by massive reserviors
(also called electrolytic capacitors) and due to numerous other
electrolytics and cermanic capacitors all over the motherboard. Same
fact was also described previously as low pass filters.

But again, if you were right, then we were never discovering
defective power supplies with a multimeter. Why did the multimeter
routinely find defective supplies even when electronics were working?
The multimeter is the definitive answer. Shotgunning does not provide
definitive answers AND takes more time AND can exponentially
complicate the problem AND makes it difficult or impossible for the
better educated to provide assistance.

Only method avaiable to a typical comptuer tech or homeowner to
identify a power supply _definitively_ - the 3.5 digit mulitmeter.
Same facts also define numbers often different from what others (who
did not do this stuff) might post. Minimum voltage is 3.23, 4.87, and
11.7 VDC - based in and different from numbers found in ATX specs.
Engineering reasons make this obvious with technical experience.

Another bad recommendation is reseating. One engineer once got
reassigned for solving that way. Yes, reseating may 'fix' a problem
only because it cures a symptom. When I arrived to solve this
problem, well, the resulting repairs (because they reseated rather
than fix the problem) amounted to maybe as much as $100K. Any good
engineer does not recommend reseating to fix anything. If reseating
fixes something, then the problem is not solved and still exists.

Reseating also makes a solution difficult. Best is to disconnect
nothing. Instead first collect facts so that a solutioni can be
implemented the first time ... AFTER facts are collected Good
diagnostic procedure always identifies a problem before fixing it. If
reseating any board or connector 'fixes it', then the problem remains
- is not solved.

[[email protected]]

On Dec 13, 4:39*am, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
> wrote:
> A multimeter will detect gross low (or high) voltage problems, and
> certainly is worth using. It won't detect short-term dips/spikes (unless
> it has a peak/low function).

Again, reasoning assumes resevoirs empty during every network TV
commericials. The metaphor still remains, is accurate, and describes
why a multimeter routinely gets definitive (without any doubt)
answers. We who did this stuff professionally saw a multimeter
routinely detect supply problems most every time. Voltages don't drop
as described because that voltage is provided by massive reserviors
(also called electrolytic capacitors) and due to numerous other
electrolytics and cermanic capacitors all over the motherboard. Same
fact was also described previously as low pass filters.

But again, if you were right, then we were never discovering
defective power supplies with a multimeter. Why did the multimeter
routinely find defective supplies even when electronics were working?
The multimeter is the definitive answer. Shotgunning does not provide
definitive answers AND takes more time AND can exponentially
complicate the problem AND makes it difficult or impossible for the
better educated to provide assistance.

Only method avaiable to a typical comptuer tech or homeowner to
identify a power supply _definitively_ - the 3.5 digit mulitmeter.
Same facts also define numbers often different from what others (who
did not do this stuff) might post. Minimum voltage is 3.23, 4.87, and
11.7 VDC - based in and different from numbers found in ATX specs.
Engineering reasons make this obvious with technical experience.

Another bad recommendation is reseating. One engineer once got
reassigned for solving that way. Yes, reseating may 'fix' a problem
only because it cures a symptom. When I arrived to solve this
problem, well, the resulting repairs (because they reseated rather
than fix the problem) amounted to maybe as much as $100K. Any good
engineer does not recommend reseating to fix anything. If reseating
fixes something, then the problem is not solved and still exists.

Reseating also makes a solution difficult. Best is to disconnect
nothing. Instead first collect facts so that a solutioni can be
implemented the first time ... AFTER facts are collected Good
diagnostic procedure always identifies a problem before fixing it. If
reseating any board or connector 'fixes it', then the problem remains
- is not solved.

[FromTheRafters[_2_]]

When my computer breaks, I'm taking it to a repair technician.
NOT an engineer.

:o)

> wrote in message
...
On Dec 13, 4:39 am, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
> wrote:
> A multimeter will detect gross low (or high) voltage problems, and
> certainly is worth using. It won't detect short-term dips/spikes (unless
> it has a peak/low function).

Again, reasoning assumes resevoirs empty during every network TV
commericials. The metaphor still remains, is accurate, and describes
why a multimeter routinely gets definitive (without any doubt)
answers. We who did this stuff professionally saw a multimeter
routinely detect supply problems most every time. Voltages don't drop
as described because that voltage is provided by massive reserviors
(also called electrolytic capacitors) and due to numerous other
electrolytics and cermanic capacitors all over the motherboard. Same
fact was also described previously as low pass filters.

But again, if you were right, then we were never discovering
defective power supplies with a multimeter. Why did the multimeter
routinely find defective supplies even when electronics were working?
The multimeter is the definitive answer. Shotgunning does not provide
definitive answers AND takes more time AND can exponentially
complicate the problem AND makes it difficult or impossible for the
better educated to provide assistance.

Only method avaiable to a typical comptuer tech or homeowner to
identify a power supply _definitively_ - the 3.5 digit mulitmeter.
Same facts also define numbers often different from what others (who
did not do this stuff) might post. Minimum voltage is 3.23, 4.87, and
11.7 VDC - based in and different from numbers found in ATX specs.
Engineering reasons make this obvious with technical experience.

Another bad recommendation is reseating. One engineer once got
reassigned for solving that way. Yes, reseating may 'fix' a problem
only because it cures a symptom. When I arrived to solve this
problem, well, the resulting repairs (because they reseated rather
than fix the problem) amounted to maybe as much as $100K. Any good
engineer does not recommend reseating to fix anything. If reseating
fixes something, then the problem is not solved and still exists.

Reseating also makes a solution difficult. Best is to disconnect
nothing. Instead first collect facts so that a solutioni can be
implemented the first time ... AFTER facts are collected Good
diagnostic procedure always identifies a problem before fixing it. If
reseating any board or connector 'fixes it', then the problem remains
- is not solved.

[FromTheRafters[_2_]]

When my computer breaks, I'm taking it to a repair technician.
NOT an engineer.

:o)

> wrote in message
...
On Dec 13, 4:39 am, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
> wrote:
> A multimeter will detect gross low (or high) voltage problems, and
> certainly is worth using. It won't detect short-term dips/spikes (unless
> it has a peak/low function).

Again, reasoning assumes resevoirs empty during every network TV
commericials. The metaphor still remains, is accurate, and describes
why a multimeter routinely gets definitive (without any doubt)
answers. We who did this stuff professionally saw a multimeter
routinely detect supply problems most every time. Voltages don't drop
as described because that voltage is provided by massive reserviors
(also called electrolytic capacitors) and due to numerous other
electrolytics and cermanic capacitors all over the motherboard. Same
fact was also described previously as low pass filters.

But again, if you were right, then we were never discovering
defective power supplies with a multimeter. Why did the multimeter
routinely find defective supplies even when electronics were working?
The multimeter is the definitive answer. Shotgunning does not provide
definitive answers AND takes more time AND can exponentially
complicate the problem AND makes it difficult or impossible for the
better educated to provide assistance.

Only method avaiable to a typical comptuer tech or homeowner to
identify a power supply _definitively_ - the 3.5 digit mulitmeter.
Same facts also define numbers often different from what others (who
did not do this stuff) might post. Minimum voltage is 3.23, 4.87, and
11.7 VDC - based in and different from numbers found in ATX specs.
Engineering reasons make this obvious with technical experience.

Another bad recommendation is reseating. One engineer once got
reassigned for solving that way. Yes, reseating may 'fix' a problem
only because it cures a symptom. When I arrived to solve this
problem, well, the resulting repairs (because they reseated rather
than fix the problem) amounted to maybe as much as $100K. Any good
engineer does not recommend reseating to fix anything. If reseating
fixes something, then the problem is not solved and still exists.

Reseating also makes a solution difficult. Best is to disconnect
nothing. Instead first collect facts so that a solutioni can be
implemented the first time ... AFTER facts are collected Good
diagnostic procedure always identifies a problem before fixing it. If
reseating any board or connector 'fixes it', then the problem remains
- is not solved.

[Buffalo]

wrote:

> reseating any board or connector 'fixes it', then the problem remains
> - is not solved.

It does, on ocassion, work. Perhaps you could explain why correcting a bad
(poor electrical contact) or loose connection is not akin to fixing the
problem.?

[Buffalo]

wrote:

> reseating any board or connector 'fixes it', then the problem remains
> - is not solved.

It does, on ocassion, work. Perhaps you could explain why correcting a bad
(poor electrical contact) or loose connection is not akin to fixing the
problem.?

[MEB[_2_]]

In that instance, the issue is likely corrosion, IF not related to age, then
reseating MAY not be the best fix as it MAY re-occur. Like cables applying
to much stress on the adapter; connection pins or solder joints failing; or
other.... SRTSP, check everything, layout a concise plan for repair, or
EXPECT potential returns or disgruntled customers.

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org
a Peoples' counsel

Windows diagnostics/Security/Networking:
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
_ _
~~
"Buffalo" > wrote in message
...
|
|
| wrote:
|
| > reseating any board or connector 'fixes it', then the problem remains
| > - is not solved.
|
| It does, on ocassion, work. Perhaps you could explain why correcting a bad
| (poor electrical contact) or loose connection is not akin to fixing the
| problem.?
|
|

[MEB[_2_]]

In that instance, the issue is likely corrosion, IF not related to age, then
reseating MAY not be the best fix as it MAY re-occur. Like cables applying
to much stress on the adapter; connection pins or solder joints failing; or
other.... SRTSP, check everything, layout a concise plan for repair, or
EXPECT potential returns or disgruntled customers.

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org
a Peoples' counsel

Windows diagnostics/Security/Networking:
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
_ _
~~
"Buffalo" > wrote in message
...
|
|
| wrote:
|
| > reseating any board or connector 'fixes it', then the problem remains
| > - is not solved.
|
| It does, on ocassion, work. Perhaps you could explain why correcting a bad
| (poor electrical contact) or loose connection is not akin to fixing the
| problem.?
|
|

[Buffalo]

MEB wrote:
> In that instance, the issue is likely corrosion, IF not related to
> age, then reseating MAY not be the best fix as it MAY re-occur. Like
> cables applying to much stress on the adapter; connection pins or
> solder joints failing; or other.... SRTSP, check everything, layout a
> concise plan for repair, or EXPECT potential returns or disgruntled
> customers.
>
If reseating works, then the problem is narrowed down.
Reseating ususally works due to oxidation on the contacts or a partially not
fully connected item, whether it be a ram stick, vid card, or partially
unconnected connector plug.
Buffalo

[Buffalo]

MEB wrote:
> In that instance, the issue is likely corrosion, IF not related to
> age, then reseating MAY not be the best fix as it MAY re-occur. Like
> cables applying to much stress on the adapter; connection pins or
> solder joints failing; or other.... SRTSP, check everything, layout a
> concise plan for repair, or EXPECT potential returns or disgruntled
> customers.
>
If reseating works, then the problem is narrowed down.
Reseating ususally works due to oxidation on the contacts or a partially not
fully connected item, whether it be a ram stick, vid card, or partially
unconnected connector plug.
Buffalo

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message
>,
writes:
>On Dec 13, 4:39*am, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
> wrote:
>> A multimeter will detect gross low (or high) voltage problems, and
>> certainly is worth using. It won't detect short-term dips/spikes (unless
>> it has a peak/low function).
>
> Again, reasoning assumes resevoirs empty during every network TV
>commericials. The metaphor still remains, is accurate, and describes
>why a multimeter routinely gets definitive (without any doubt)
>answers. We who did this stuff professionally saw a multimeter
>routinely detect supply problems most every time. Voltages don't drop

I'm not saying you didn't detect faulty supplies with a multimeter; I'm
saying it won't detect _all_ faulty supplies.

>as described because that voltage is provided by massive reserviors
>(also called electrolytic capacitors) and due to numerous other

They aren't actually _that_ large on the LT side of a switched-mode
supply, but I agree they are there. However, they can lose capacity with
no outward sign - which means the supply can read correctly on a
multimeter, but not under load (especially sudden load). If you can,
measure the voltages when the system in question is pretty busy, that'll
show up some such errors.

>electrolytics and cermanic capacitors all over the motherboard. Same
>fact was also described previously as low pass filters.

Yes, the capacitors on the mobo will indeed support it through some
periods of high demand/low supply. Of course, they can fail too, and
there was/is - allegedly - a very large batch of them that were sold to
a wide variety of mobo manufacturers, which fail after a while in use;
obviously such a mobo would be a bit flaky regardless of the supply,
though would be more so with a supply whose capacitors were also flaky.
>
> But again, if you were right, then we were never discovering
>defective power supplies with a multimeter. Why did the multimeter

I never said you weren't, only that that technique wouldn't detect _all_
faulty supplies, only those with a particular kind of fault (or a range
of such types of fault).

>routinely find defective supplies even when electronics were working?
>The multimeter is the definitive answer. Shotgunning does not provide

Not definitive. It _will_ detect certain kinds of fault, definitively,
no argument there.

>definitive answers AND takes more time AND can exponentially

I did ask if by "shotgunning" you meant replacing parts on spec.; since
you haven't answered me, I'll assume that is what you meant.

>complicate the problem AND makes it difficult or impossible for the
>better educated to provide assistance.

I try to avoid terms like "naive" and "better educated" (-:
>
> Only method avaiable to a typical comptuer tech or homeowner to
>identify a power supply _definitively_ - the 3.5 digit mulitmeter.

(I'd say 2.5 would be more than sufficient. And again I won't agree with
definitive[ly]. I _will_ agree it will definitively identify some kinds
of fault, but not that it will definitively give a clean bill of
health.)
[]
> Another bad recommendation is reseating. One engineer once got
>reassigned for solving that way. Yes, reseating may 'fix' a problem
>only because it cures a symptom. When I arrived to solve this
>problem, well, the resulting repairs (because they reseated rather
>than fix the problem) amounted to maybe as much as $100K. Any good
>engineer does not recommend reseating to fix anything. If reseating
>fixes something, then the problem is not solved and still exists.

Not necessarily.
>
> Reseating also makes a solution difficult. Best is to disconnect
>nothing. Instead first collect facts so that a solutioni can be
>implemented the first time ... AFTER facts are collected Good
>diagnostic procedure always identifies a problem before fixing it. If
>reseating any board or connector 'fixes it', then the problem remains
>- is not solved.

But, for practical purposes, it can be.

Actually, what sort of fault are you thinking of where reseating
_appears_ to fix it but doesn't? I have some answers in mind, I just am
curious to see if they're the same as the ones you're thinking of.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

"THE MIT LAW OF SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT ENVELOPMENT: Every program expands until
it can read mail." - unknown

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message
>,
writes:
>On Dec 13, 4:39*am, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
> wrote:
>> A multimeter will detect gross low (or high) voltage problems, and
>> certainly is worth using. It won't detect short-term dips/spikes (unless
>> it has a peak/low function).
>
> Again, reasoning assumes resevoirs empty during every network TV
>commericials. The metaphor still remains, is accurate, and describes
>why a multimeter routinely gets definitive (without any doubt)
>answers. We who did this stuff professionally saw a multimeter
>routinely detect supply problems most every time. Voltages don't drop

I'm not saying you didn't detect faulty supplies with a multimeter; I'm
saying it won't detect _all_ faulty supplies.

>as described because that voltage is provided by massive reserviors
>(also called electrolytic capacitors) and due to numerous other

They aren't actually _that_ large on the LT side of a switched-mode
supply, but I agree they are there. However, they can lose capacity with
no outward sign - which means the supply can read correctly on a
multimeter, but not under load (especially sudden load). If you can,
measure the voltages when the system in question is pretty busy, that'll
show up some such errors.

>electrolytics and cermanic capacitors all over the motherboard. Same
>fact was also described previously as low pass filters.

Yes, the capacitors on the mobo will indeed support it through some
periods of high demand/low supply. Of course, they can fail too, and
there was/is - allegedly - a very large batch of them that were sold to
a wide variety of mobo manufacturers, which fail after a while in use;
obviously such a mobo would be a bit flaky regardless of the supply,
though would be more so with a supply whose capacitors were also flaky.
>
> But again, if you were right, then we were never discovering
>defective power supplies with a multimeter. Why did the multimeter

I never said you weren't, only that that technique wouldn't detect _all_
faulty supplies, only those with a particular kind of fault (or a range
of such types of fault).

>routinely find defective supplies even when electronics were working?
>The multimeter is the definitive answer. Shotgunning does not provide

Not definitive. It _will_ detect certain kinds of fault, definitively,
no argument there.

>definitive answers AND takes more time AND can exponentially

I did ask if by "shotgunning" you meant replacing parts on spec.; since
you haven't answered me, I'll assume that is what you meant.

>complicate the problem AND makes it difficult or impossible for the
>better educated to provide assistance.

I try to avoid terms like "naive" and "better educated" (-:
>
> Only method avaiable to a typical comptuer tech or homeowner to
>identify a power supply _definitively_ - the 3.5 digit mulitmeter.

(I'd say 2.5 would be more than sufficient. And again I won't agree with
definitive[ly]. I _will_ agree it will definitively identify some kinds
of fault, but not that it will definitively give a clean bill of
health.)
[]
> Another bad recommendation is reseating. One engineer once got
>reassigned for solving that way. Yes, reseating may 'fix' a problem
>only because it cures a symptom. When I arrived to solve this
>problem, well, the resulting repairs (because they reseated rather
>than fix the problem) amounted to maybe as much as $100K. Any good
>engineer does not recommend reseating to fix anything. If reseating
>fixes something, then the problem is not solved and still exists.

Not necessarily.
>
> Reseating also makes a solution difficult. Best is to disconnect
>nothing. Instead first collect facts so that a solutioni can be
>implemented the first time ... AFTER facts are collected Good
>diagnostic procedure always identifies a problem before fixing it. If
>reseating any board or connector 'fixes it', then the problem remains
>- is not solved.

But, for practical purposes, it can be.

Actually, what sort of fault are you thinking of where reseating
_appears_ to fix it but doesn't? I have some answers in mind, I just am
curious to see if they're the same as the ones you're thinking of.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

"THE MIT LAW OF SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT ENVELOPMENT: Every program expands until
it can read mail." - unknown

[[email protected]]

Yes, as stated previously, some problems such as a missing AC noise
filters will not be detected. But those are outside the context of
this discussion. Multimeter also will not detect a stolen
presidential election. That too is outside the context. A
multimeter will always locate a supply defect that causes the system
to not boot or work reliably. The meter either says the supply is
perfectly good - move on to other suspect. Or the meter says this
power supply is defective - must be replaced. Both are definitive
answers.

As stated both from what is being measured AND from decades of
experience, that 'fast pulse' is detected if the supply is
insufficient. There is no one fast pulse. If that fast pulse exists.
It exists repeatedly. Any fast pulse that a power supply can (and
must) handle is made irrelevant by low pass filters. If the fast
pulse is problematic, then a multimeter will report it. If a power
supply is properly sized, the fast pulse is normal and acceptable
operation - does not create 'out of spec' voltages - does not crash a
computer.

Experience AND the concepts behind this diagnostic procedure
demonstrate why smarter (better trained) techs use the meter and avoid
shotgunning. If the meter was not detecting all relevant failures,
then why was it performing reliably - identifying defects 100% of the
time?

How to find those failing (bulging) capacitors before capacitors
cause computer failure? The multimeter. Yes, a multimeter would not
detect those defective capacitors before the defect became apparent.
No measureable defect existed yet. So yes, one can complain that
'what will become defective' capacitors were not detected by the
meter. But the discussion here is how to find currently defective
power supplies; also before a defect becomes worse and crashes a
computer. Locating a defect in but minutes or seconds. Solving
computer problems maybe 5 times faster than what can be achieved by
shotgunning.

Clearly, the meter is a superior solution compared to the so popular
method called shotgunning - for multiple reasons already provided.

2.5 digits (analog meter) is insufficient. 3.5 digits (a standard
multimeter) is necessary because of what is being measured.

Shotgunning - replacing parts on spec? I don't now what that
means. If a power supply is out of spec (relevant parameters), then a
multimeter should discover it. Shotgunning is replacing a power
supply regardless of whether the original supply is or is not 'in
spec'. Shotgunning is fixing something only on wild speculation.
Computer does not start. Wild speculations – automatically blame and
replace the power supply – is shotgunning.

On Dec 16, 7:14*pm, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
> wrote:
> ...
> I'm not saying you didn't detect faulty supplies with a multimeter; I'm
> saying it won't detect _all_ faulty supplies.
> ...
>
> They aren't actually _that_ large on the LT side of a switched-mode
> supply, but I agree they are there. However, they can lose capacity with
> no outward sign - which means the supply can read correctly on a
> multimeter, but not under load (especially sudden load). If you can,
> measure the voltages when the system in question is pretty busy, that'll
> show up some such errors.
> ...
> Yes, the capacitors on the mobo will indeed support it through some
> periods of high demand/low supply. Of course, they can fail too, and
> there was/is - allegedly - a very large batch of them that were sold to
> a wide variety of mobo manufacturers, which fail after a while in use;
> obviously such a mobo would be a bit flaky regardless of the supply,
> though would be more so with a supply whose capacitors were also flaky.
> ...
>
> I never said you weren't, only that that technique wouldn't detect _all_
> faulty supplies, only those with a particular kind of fault (or a range
> of such types of fault).
> ...
> Not definitive. It _will_ detect certain kinds of fault, definitively,
> no argument there.
> ...
> I did ask if by "shotgunning" you meant replacing parts on spec.; since
> you haven't answered me, I'll assume that is what you meant.
> ...
> I try to avoid terms like "naive" and "better educated" (-:
> ...
>
> (I'd say 2.5 would be more than sufficient. And again I won't agree with
> definitive[ly]. I _will_ agree it will definitively identify some kinds
> of fault, but not that it will definitively give a clean bill of
> health.)
> ...

[[email protected]]

Yes, as stated previously, some problems such as a missing AC noise
filters will not be detected. But those are outside the context of
this discussion. Multimeter also will not detect a stolen
presidential election. That too is outside the context. A
multimeter will always locate a supply defect that causes the system
to not boot or work reliably. The meter either says the supply is
perfectly good - move on to other suspect. Or the meter says this
power supply is defective - must be replaced. Both are definitive
answers.

As stated both from what is being measured AND from decades of
experience, that 'fast pulse' is detected if the supply is
insufficient. There is no one fast pulse. If that fast pulse exists.
It exists repeatedly. Any fast pulse that a power supply can (and
must) handle is made irrelevant by low pass filters. If the fast
pulse is problematic, then a multimeter will report it. If a power
supply is properly sized, the fast pulse is normal and acceptable
operation - does not create 'out of spec' voltages - does not crash a
computer.

Experience AND the concepts behind this diagnostic procedure
demonstrate why smarter (better trained) techs use the meter and avoid
shotgunning. If the meter was not detecting all relevant failures,
then why was it performing reliably - identifying defects 100% of the
time?

How to find those failing (bulging) capacitors before capacitors
cause computer failure? The multimeter. Yes, a multimeter would not
detect those defective capacitors before the defect became apparent.
No measureable defect existed yet. So yes, one can complain that
'what will become defective' capacitors were not detected by the
meter. But the discussion here is how to find currently defective
power supplies; also before a defect becomes worse and crashes a
computer. Locating a defect in but minutes or seconds. Solving
computer problems maybe 5 times faster than what can be achieved by
shotgunning.

Clearly, the meter is a superior solution compared to the so popular
method called shotgunning - for multiple reasons already provided.

2.5 digits (analog meter) is insufficient. 3.5 digits (a standard
multimeter) is necessary because of what is being measured.

Shotgunning - replacing parts on spec? I don't now what that
means. If a power supply is out of spec (relevant parameters), then a
multimeter should discover it. Shotgunning is replacing a power
supply regardless of whether the original supply is or is not 'in
spec'. Shotgunning is fixing something only on wild speculation.
Computer does not start. Wild speculations – automatically blame and
replace the power supply – is shotgunning.

On Dec 16, 7:14*pm, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
> wrote:
> ...
> I'm not saying you didn't detect faulty supplies with a multimeter; I'm
> saying it won't detect _all_ faulty supplies.
> ...
>
> They aren't actually _that_ large on the LT side of a switched-mode
> supply, but I agree they are there. However, they can lose capacity with
> no outward sign - which means the supply can read correctly on a
> multimeter, but not under load (especially sudden load). If you can,
> measure the voltages when the system in question is pretty busy, that'll
> show up some such errors.
> ...
> Yes, the capacitors on the mobo will indeed support it through some
> periods of high demand/low supply. Of course, they can fail too, and
> there was/is - allegedly - a very large batch of them that were sold to
> a wide variety of mobo manufacturers, which fail after a while in use;
> obviously such a mobo would be a bit flaky regardless of the supply,
> though would be more so with a supply whose capacitors were also flaky.
> ...
>
> I never said you weren't, only that that technique wouldn't detect _all_
> faulty supplies, only those with a particular kind of fault (or a range
> of such types of fault).
> ...
> Not definitive. It _will_ detect certain kinds of fault, definitively,
> no argument there.
> ...
> I did ask if by "shotgunning" you meant replacing parts on spec.; since
> you haven't answered me, I'll assume that is what you meant.
> ...
> I try to avoid terms like "naive" and "better educated" (-:
> ...
>
> (I'd say 2.5 would be more than sufficient. And again I won't agree with
> definitive[ly]. I _will_ agree it will definitively identify some kinds
> of fault, but not that it will definitively give a clean bill of
> health.)
> ...

[MEB[_2_]]

"Buffalo" > wrote in message
...
|
|
| MEB wrote:
| > In that instance, the issue is likely corrosion, IF not related to
| > age, then reseating MAY not be the best fix as it MAY re-occur. Like
| > cables applying to much stress on the adapter; connection pins or
| > solder joints failing; or other.... SRTSP, check everything, layout a
| > concise plan for repair, or EXPECT potential returns or disgruntled
| > customers.
| >
| If reseating works, then the problem is narrowed down.
| Reseating ususally works due to oxidation on the contacts or a partially
not
| fully connected item, whether it be a ram stick, vid card, or partially
| unconnected connector plug.
| Buffalo

Okay, but one SHOULD pull the cards/adapters and pencil/pen eraser the
contacts, and clean the slot...

You MAY accidentally fix a faulty connection by wiggling, but that sure
isn't going to fix bad solder joints, or expanded connectors.

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org
a Peoples' counsel

Windows diagnostics/Security/Networking:
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
_ _
~~

[MEB[_2_]]

"Buffalo" > wrote in message
...
|
|
| MEB wrote:
| > In that instance, the issue is likely corrosion, IF not related to
| > age, then reseating MAY not be the best fix as it MAY re-occur. Like
| > cables applying to much stress on the adapter; connection pins or
| > solder joints failing; or other.... SRTSP, check everything, layout a
| > concise plan for repair, or EXPECT potential returns or disgruntled
| > customers.
| >
| If reseating works, then the problem is narrowed down.
| Reseating ususally works due to oxidation on the contacts or a partially
not
| fully connected item, whether it be a ram stick, vid card, or partially
| unconnected connector plug.
| Buffalo

Okay, but one SHOULD pull the cards/adapters and pencil/pen eraser the
contacts, and clean the slot...

You MAY accidentally fix a faulty connection by wiggling, but that sure
isn't going to fix bad solder joints, or expanded connectors.

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org
a Peoples' counsel

Windows diagnostics/Security/Networking:
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
_ _
~~

[Buffalo]

MEB wrote:
> "Buffalo" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>
>> MEB wrote:
>>> In that instance, the issue is likely corrosion, IF not related to
>>> age, then reseating MAY not be the best fix as it MAY re-occur. Like
>>> cables applying to much stress on the adapter; connection pins or
>>> solder joints failing; or other.... SRTSP, check everything, layout
>>> a concise plan for repair, or EXPECT potential returns or
>>> disgruntled customers.
>>>
>> If reseating works, then the problem is narrowed down.
>> Reseating ususally works due to oxidation on the contacts or a
>> partially not fully connected item, whether it be a ram stick, vid
>> card, or partially unconnected connector plug.
>> Buffalo
>
> Okay, but one SHOULD pull the cards/adapters and pencil/pen eraser
> the contacts, and clean the slot...
>
> You MAY accidentally fix a faulty connection by wiggling, but that
> sure isn't going to fix bad solder joints, or expanded connectors.

I agree.

[Buffalo]

MEB wrote:
> "Buffalo" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>
>> MEB wrote:
>>> In that instance, the issue is likely corrosion, IF not related to
>>> age, then reseating MAY not be the best fix as it MAY re-occur. Like
>>> cables applying to much stress on the adapter; connection pins or
>>> solder joints failing; or other.... SRTSP, check everything, layout
>>> a concise plan for repair, or EXPECT potential returns or
>>> disgruntled customers.
>>>
>> If reseating works, then the problem is narrowed down.
>> Reseating ususally works due to oxidation on the contacts or a
>> partially not fully connected item, whether it be a ram stick, vid
>> card, or partially unconnected connector plug.
>> Buffalo
>
> Okay, but one SHOULD pull the cards/adapters and pencil/pen eraser
> the contacts, and clean the slot...
>
> You MAY accidentally fix a faulty connection by wiggling, but that
> sure isn't going to fix bad solder joints, or expanded connectors.

I agree.

[[email protected]]

On Dec 18, 5:31*am, "MEB" <meb@not > wrote:
> *Okay, but one SHOULD pull the cards/adapters and pencil/pen eraser the
> contacts, and clean the slot...

If eraser cleaning a contact eliminates a failure, then the defect
remains; problem not solved. That 'cleaning with an eraser' technique
is a first bad habit that a technician is retrained not to do.

If cleaning one contact or cooling one IC 'temporarily' fixes a
problem, then a symptom helps locate the defect. But again, only to
find the defect - not to fix anything. Cleaning all contacts with an
eraser does not identify a problem; only cures symptoms.

Furthermore, connectors are self cleaning. That alone should make
the eraser unnecessary - not fix anything. If simply removing and
replacing a connection does not clean contacts sufficiently, then the
unacceptable and unidentified defect is even worse. Cleaning contacts
with an eraser is a typical symptom of a tech that needs retraining or
needs a new job.

[[email protected]]

On Dec 18, 5:31*am, "MEB" <meb@not > wrote:
> *Okay, but one SHOULD pull the cards/adapters and pencil/pen eraser the
> contacts, and clean the slot...

If eraser cleaning a contact eliminates a failure, then the defect
remains; problem not solved. That 'cleaning with an eraser' technique
is a first bad habit that a technician is retrained not to do.

If cleaning one contact or cooling one IC 'temporarily' fixes a
problem, then a symptom helps locate the defect. But again, only to
find the defect - not to fix anything. Cleaning all contacts with an
eraser does not identify a problem; only cures symptoms.

Furthermore, connectors are self cleaning. That alone should make
the eraser unnecessary - not fix anything. If simply removing and
replacing a connection does not clean contacts sufficiently, then the
unacceptable and unidentified defect is even worse. Cleaning contacts
with an eraser is a typical symptom of a tech that needs retraining or
needs a new job.

[MEB[_2_]]

> wrote in message
...
On Dec 18, 5:31 am, "MEB" <meb@not > wrote:
> Okay, but one SHOULD pull the cards/adapters and pencil/pen eraser the
> contacts, and clean the slot...

If eraser cleaning a contact eliminates a failure, then the defect
remains; problem not solved. That 'cleaning with an eraser' technique
is a first bad habit that a technician is retrained not to do.

If cleaning one contact or cooling one IC 'temporarily' fixes a
problem, then a symptom helps locate the defect. But again, only to
find the defect - not to fix anything. Cleaning all contacts with an
eraser does not identify a problem; only cures symptoms.
---

MEB - Ah good idea, jump in here WITHOUT reading the prior statements....
Environmental aspects DO come into play, however, AGE also comes into
play... we're talking about general maintenance.
Your NOT going to convince very many home owners that they need to place
the computer tower/case into an environmentally controlled room.. so you do
what''s necessary...

---
Furthermore, connectors are self cleaning. That alone should make
the eraser unnecessary - not fix anything. If simply removing and
replacing a connection does not clean contacts sufficiently, then the
unacceptable and unidentified defect is even worse. Cleaning contacts
with an eraser is a typical symptom of a tech that needs retraining or
needs a new job.
---

MEB - NO your response indicates you have very little REAL WORLD
experience...
the contacts are NOT self cleaning, gold *plated* contacts are RESISTANT to
corrosion NOT corrosion proof, moreover, the contacts may not be gold plated
or have degraded.
So think again...

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org
a Peoples' counsel

Windows diagnostics/Security/Networking:
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
_ _
~~

[MEB[_2_]]

> wrote in message
...
On Dec 18, 5:31 am, "MEB" <meb@not > wrote:
> Okay, but one SHOULD pull the cards/adapters and pencil/pen eraser the
> contacts, and clean the slot...

If eraser cleaning a contact eliminates a failure, then the defect
remains; problem not solved. That 'cleaning with an eraser' technique
is a first bad habit that a technician is retrained not to do.

If cleaning one contact or cooling one IC 'temporarily' fixes a
problem, then a symptom helps locate the defect. But again, only to
find the defect - not to fix anything. Cleaning all contacts with an
eraser does not identify a problem; only cures symptoms.
---

MEB - Ah good idea, jump in here WITHOUT reading the prior statements....
Environmental aspects DO come into play, however, AGE also comes into
play... we're talking about general maintenance.
Your NOT going to convince very many home owners that they need to place
the computer tower/case into an environmentally controlled room.. so you do
what''s necessary...

---
Furthermore, connectors are self cleaning. That alone should make
the eraser unnecessary - not fix anything. If simply removing and
replacing a connection does not clean contacts sufficiently, then the
unacceptable and unidentified defect is even worse. Cleaning contacts
with an eraser is a typical symptom of a tech that needs retraining or
needs a new job.
---

MEB - NO your response indicates you have very little REAL WORLD
experience...
the contacts are NOT self cleaning, gold *plated* contacts are RESISTANT to
corrosion NOT corrosion proof, moreover, the contacts may not be gold plated
or have degraded.
So think again...

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org
a Peoples' counsel

Windows diagnostics/Security/Networking:
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
_ _
~~

[[email protected]]

On Dec 19, 5:37*am, "MEB" <meb@not > wrote:
> MEB - NO your response indicates you have very little REAL WORLD
> experience...
> the contacts are NOT self cleaning, gold *plated* contacts are RESISTANT to
> corrosion NOT corrosion proof, moreover, the contacts may not be gold plated
> or have degraded.

Contacts were self cleaning when I was doing this stuff and you
probably did not exist. Self cleaning by 'breaking and making' a
connections was required for any minimally sufficient electronic
connector - even generations ago.

Nobody was even discussing gold plated connectors - except MEB.
Apparently he believes what is standard for all connectors instead
only apply to gold plated contacts. Last time I worked with gold
plated computer connectors - the IBM PC did not exist. But then one
here comes with significant knowledge and experience to know 'erasing'
contacts is based in junk science reasoning.

Any tech that was caught cleaning contacts with an eraser was
quickly reeducated or transferred. Still some do this eraser stuff
rather than first learn what connectors are routinely required to do.
Using an eraser to fix a failure by 'cleaning contacts' is a benchmark
for the poorly trained tech.

Read connector application notes such as from Amp. Or is that
information so old and so well known that manufacturer application
notes are no longer available? Well, at least one here learned from
those manufacturer app notes so long ago that the app notes may have
since been discontinued - because everyone knew that stuff.

Any environment that a PC operates in must not degrade any
connector. If a human can survive in it, then a computer must not be
harmed by it. Computers must experience very harsh environments and
operate in difficult environments - and still operate just fine. That
means electronics work even when contacts become normally corroded.
'Breaking, then making' a connection even cleans worse corrosion. Old
and well proven technology.

Why would someone fix a computer by cleaning connectors with an
eraser? Insufficient technical knowledge.

Electronics are designed so that connector corrosion does not cause
failures. Furthermore connectors are self cleaning - a fact well
known more than 40 years ago.

In a parallel example, GM cars would often suffer computer failures.
Its computer was replaced with a rebuilt one for maybe $400. But when
that computer arrived back at the factory, that computer worked just
fine. Why? GM saved money on inferior connectors. When a new
computer was installed, even cheapest GM connectors cleaned themselves
- eliminated computer sensor problems. Even deficient connectors in
1980s GM cars were self cleaning. Even defectively designed (cheapest
possible) connectors would be cleaned by simply 'breaking and making'
the connection. An old and well known fact. A fact unknown to
computer techs 20 years later? Cleaning contacts with an eraser to
fix a computer: an urban myth that is still alive and well.

[[email protected]]

On Dec 19, 5:37*am, "MEB" <meb@not > wrote:
> MEB - NO your response indicates you have very little REAL WORLD
> experience...
> the contacts are NOT self cleaning, gold *plated* contacts are RESISTANT to
> corrosion NOT corrosion proof, moreover, the contacts may not be gold plated
> or have degraded.

Contacts were self cleaning when I was doing this stuff and you
probably did not exist. Self cleaning by 'breaking and making' a
connections was required for any minimally sufficient electronic
connector - even generations ago.

Nobody was even discussing gold plated connectors - except MEB.
Apparently he believes what is standard for all connectors instead
only apply to gold plated contacts. Last time I worked with gold
plated computer connectors - the IBM PC did not exist. But then one
here comes with significant knowledge and experience to know 'erasing'
contacts is based in junk science reasoning.

Any tech that was caught cleaning contacts with an eraser was
quickly reeducated or transferred. Still some do this eraser stuff
rather than first learn what connectors are routinely required to do.
Using an eraser to fix a failure by 'cleaning contacts' is a benchmark
for the poorly trained tech.

Read connector application notes such as from Amp. Or is that
information so old and so well known that manufacturer application
notes are no longer available? Well, at least one here learned from
those manufacturer app notes so long ago that the app notes may have
since been discontinued - because everyone knew that stuff.

Any environment that a PC operates in must not degrade any
connector. If a human can survive in it, then a computer must not be
harmed by it. Computers must experience very harsh environments and
operate in difficult environments - and still operate just fine. That
means electronics work even when contacts become normally corroded.
'Breaking, then making' a connection even cleans worse corrosion. Old
and well proven technology.

Why would someone fix a computer by cleaning connectors with an
eraser? Insufficient technical knowledge.

Electronics are designed so that connector corrosion does not cause
failures. Furthermore connectors are self cleaning - a fact well
known more than 40 years ago.

In a parallel example, GM cars would often suffer computer failures.
Its computer was replaced with a rebuilt one for maybe $400. But when
that computer arrived back at the factory, that computer worked just
fine. Why? GM saved money on inferior connectors. When a new
computer was installed, even cheapest GM connectors cleaned themselves
- eliminated computer sensor problems. Even deficient connectors in
1980s GM cars were self cleaning. Even defectively designed (cheapest
possible) connectors would be cleaned by simply 'breaking and making'
the connection. An old and well known fact. A fact unknown to
computer techs 20 years later? Cleaning contacts with an eraser to
fix a computer: an urban myth that is still alive and well.

[Buffalo]

wrote:

[snip]
>an urban myth that is still alive and well.
That sounds just like a good description of you.

PS:Telling people that reseating a vid card, mem stick, HDD connectors just
complicates or covers up the real problem is very misleading and wrong. It
is simple to do and costs nothing and very rarely could cause harm or a
problem.

[Buffalo]

wrote:

[snip]
>an urban myth that is still alive and well.
That sounds just like a good description of you.

PS:Telling people that reseating a vid card, mem stick, HDD connectors just
complicates or covers up the real problem is very misleading and wrong. It
is simple to do and costs nothing and very rarely could cause harm or a
problem.

[MEB[_2_]]

You are amazing... I'm 55 so how old are you bud...

Most of what you have presented is pure bunk,,,

Connectors are NOT self cleaning, and as I have had lengthy experience both
as a auto mechanic AND as a computer tech and IT, and several other areas,
your purported experience doesn't impress me, nor does it reflect the world
where WE live, maybe it does in that dreamworld of yours.. here's a fact to
ponder, network/Internet servers are placed into CONTROLLED environments
BECAUSE of the effects of dust, heat, and environmental pollutants... guess
that's all unnecessary where you live...

MOST/many connectors are tin plated AND affected by the environment.... why
don't you spend sometime actually looking at the information and actual
*physical examples*.... books are great except for one thing, they rely upon
what that party thought or design PLANS and perhaps test runs not
production... good examples are books on Microsoft products, when they get
into the actual coding and EXACTLY what occurs, they generally fail...

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org
a Peoples' counsel

Windows diagnostics/Security/Networking:
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
_ _
~~
> wrote in message
...
On Dec 19, 5:37 am, "MEB" <meb@not > wrote:
> MEB - NO your response indicates you have very little REAL WORLD
> experience...
> the contacts are NOT self cleaning, gold *plated* contacts are RESISTANT
to
> corrosion NOT corrosion proof, moreover, the contacts may not be gold
plated
> or have degraded.

Contacts were self cleaning when I was doing this stuff and you
probably did not exist. Self cleaning by 'breaking and making' a
connections was required for any minimally sufficient electronic
connector - even generations ago.

Nobody was even discussing gold plated connectors - except MEB.
Apparently he believes what is standard for all connectors instead
only apply to gold plated contacts. Last time I worked with gold
plated computer connectors - the IBM PC did not exist. But then one
here comes with significant knowledge and experience to know 'erasing'
contacts is based in junk science reasoning.

Any tech that was caught cleaning contacts with an eraser was
quickly reeducated or transferred. Still some do this eraser stuff
rather than first learn what connectors are routinely required to do.
Using an eraser to fix a failure by 'cleaning contacts' is a benchmark
for the poorly trained tech.

Read connector application notes such as from Amp. Or is that
information so old and so well known that manufacturer application
notes are no longer available? Well, at least one here learned from
those manufacturer app notes so long ago that the app notes may have
since been discontinued - because everyone knew that stuff.

Any environment that a PC operates in must not degrade any
connector. If a human can survive in it, then a computer must not be
harmed by it. Computers must experience very harsh environments and
operate in difficult environments - and still operate just fine. That
means electronics work even when contacts become normally corroded.
'Breaking, then making' a connection even cleans worse corrosion. Old
and well proven technology.

Why would someone fix a computer by cleaning connectors with an
eraser? Insufficient technical knowledge.

Electronics are designed so that connector corrosion does not cause
failures. Furthermore connectors are self cleaning - a fact well
known more than 40 years ago.

In a parallel example, GM cars would often suffer computer failures.
Its computer was replaced with a rebuilt one for maybe $400. But when
that computer arrived back at the factory, that computer worked just
fine. Why? GM saved money on inferior connectors. When a new
computer was installed, even cheapest GM connectors cleaned themselves
- eliminated computer sensor problems. Even deficient connectors in
1980s GM cars were self cleaning. Even defectively designed (cheapest
possible) connectors would be cleaned by simply 'breaking and making'
the connection. An old and well known fact. A fact unknown to
computer techs 20 years later? Cleaning contacts with an eraser to
fix a computer: an urban myth that is still alive and well.

[MEB[_2_]]

You are amazing... I'm 55 so how old are you bud...

Most of what you have presented is pure bunk,,,

Connectors are NOT self cleaning, and as I have had lengthy experience both
as a auto mechanic AND as a computer tech and IT, and several other areas,
your purported experience doesn't impress me, nor does it reflect the world
where WE live, maybe it does in that dreamworld of yours.. here's a fact to
ponder, network/Internet servers are placed into CONTROLLED environments
BECAUSE of the effects of dust, heat, and environmental pollutants... guess
that's all unnecessary where you live...

MOST/many connectors are tin plated AND affected by the environment.... why
don't you spend sometime actually looking at the information and actual
*physical examples*.... books are great except for one thing, they rely upon
what that party thought or design PLANS and perhaps test runs not
production... good examples are books on Microsoft products, when they get
into the actual coding and EXACTLY what occurs, they generally fail...

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org
a Peoples' counsel

Windows diagnostics/Security/Networking:
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
_ _
~~
> wrote in message
...
On Dec 19, 5:37 am, "MEB" <meb@not > wrote:
> MEB - NO your response indicates you have very little REAL WORLD
> experience...
> the contacts are NOT self cleaning, gold *plated* contacts are RESISTANT
to
> corrosion NOT corrosion proof, moreover, the contacts may not be gold
plated
> or have degraded.

Contacts were self cleaning when I was doing this stuff and you
probably did not exist. Self cleaning by 'breaking and making' a
connections was required for any minimally sufficient electronic
connector - even generations ago.

Nobody was even discussing gold plated connectors - except MEB.
Apparently he believes what is standard for all connectors instead
only apply to gold plated contacts. Last time I worked with gold
plated computer connectors - the IBM PC did not exist. But then one
here comes with significant knowledge and experience to know 'erasing'
contacts is based in junk science reasoning.

Any tech that was caught cleaning contacts with an eraser was
quickly reeducated or transferred. Still some do this eraser stuff
rather than first learn what connectors are routinely required to do.
Using an eraser to fix a failure by 'cleaning contacts' is a benchmark
for the poorly trained tech.

Read connector application notes such as from Amp. Or is that
information so old and so well known that manufacturer application
notes are no longer available? Well, at least one here learned from
those manufacturer app notes so long ago that the app notes may have
since been discontinued - because everyone knew that stuff.

Any environment that a PC operates in must not degrade any
connector. If a human can survive in it, then a computer must not be
harmed by it. Computers must experience very harsh environments and
operate in difficult environments - and still operate just fine. That
means electronics work even when contacts become normally corroded.
'Breaking, then making' a connection even cleans worse corrosion. Old
and well proven technology.

Why would someone fix a computer by cleaning connectors with an
eraser? Insufficient technical knowledge.

Electronics are designed so that connector corrosion does not cause
failures. Furthermore connectors are self cleaning - a fact well
known more than 40 years ago.

In a parallel example, GM cars would often suffer computer failures.
Its computer was replaced with a rebuilt one for maybe $400. But when
that computer arrived back at the factory, that computer worked just
fine. Why? GM saved money on inferior connectors. When a new
computer was installed, even cheapest GM connectors cleaned themselves
- eliminated computer sensor problems. Even deficient connectors in
1980s GM cars were self cleaning. Even defectively designed (cheapest
possible) connectors would be cleaned by simply 'breaking and making'
the connection. An old and well known fact. A fact unknown to
computer techs 20 years later? Cleaning contacts with an eraser to
fix a computer: an urban myth that is still alive and well.

[FromTheRafters[_2_]]

> wrote in message
...

> Even defectively designed (cheapest possible) connectors would
> be cleaned by simply 'breaking and making' the connection.

Which is exactly why reseating connectors is a good troubleshooting
procedure. I was always told not to use an eraser or steel wool to
clean contacts (it only wears them out more than need be. A cotton
swab with the proper solvent will remove crud).

Engineers can tell you how things are designed to work, and in some
cases can tell you how failures should manifest themselves. But unless
they spend time as a repair technician they haven't got a clue as to how
the real repair world operates. So called "shotgunning" is an easy way
out in some cases, and in other cases it is just expedient.

Mostly, the idea is to 'get it working' not to actually repair it. What I
mean by that is the repair tech may have to replace a failed part but
without analysing what design specification allowed the failure. I may
replace a power transistor to 'get it working' without any need to make
changes to the size of the heatsink surface or the airflow. An engineer
would probably not consider the transistor to be a failed part, rather
a faulty design that allowed the part to be used outside of its specs.

After the repair tech is done, the "problem" is still not repaired - but
at least he's 'got it working'.

[FromTheRafters[_2_]]

> wrote in message
...

> Even defectively designed (cheapest possible) connectors would
> be cleaned by simply 'breaking and making' the connection.

Which is exactly why reseating connectors is a good troubleshooting
procedure. I was always told not to use an eraser or steel wool to
clean contacts (it only wears them out more than need be. A cotton
swab with the proper solvent will remove crud).

Engineers can tell you how things are designed to work, and in some
cases can tell you how failures should manifest themselves. But unless
they spend time as a repair technician they haven't got a clue as to how
the real repair world operates. So called "shotgunning" is an easy way
out in some cases, and in other cases it is just expedient.

Mostly, the idea is to 'get it working' not to actually repair it. What I
mean by that is the repair tech may have to replace a failed part but
without analysing what design specification allowed the failure. I may
replace a power transistor to 'get it working' without any need to make
changes to the size of the heatsink surface or the airflow. An engineer
would probably not consider the transistor to be a failed part, rather
a faulty design that allowed the part to be used outside of its specs.

After the repair tech is done, the "problem" is still not repaired - but
at least he's 'got it working'.

[[email protected]]

On Dec 19, 5:06*pm, "FromTheRafters" >
wrote:
> Which is exactly why reseating connectors is a good troubleshooting
> procedure. I was always told not to use an eraser or steel wool to
> clean contacts (it only wears them out more than need be. A cotton
> swab with the proper solvent will remove crud).

Cleaning contacts means diagnostic information provided by a
normally corroded contact is lost. Curing symptoms only makes a defect
harder to locate. If contacts create a failure, then corrosion helps
find the real defect.

Notice what was posted previously and again. First collect facts
before reseating, etc. Reseating does not fix it. Reseating is
simply another symptom to track down a real defect. Unfortunately
some techs remain so naive as to even use an eraser or, as you said,
wear down the contacts in some naive belief that dirty means failure.

Connector technology is well proven and well understood from
manufacturer app notes. Educating technicians is part of the job.
Smarter technicians catch on quick. Connectors are self cleaning. If
cleaning with solvent stops a failure, the defect still exists.

Cited was an example that any tech with experience long ago
understood. GM had computer failures due to cheap connectors.
Replacing computers would (temporarily) fix the failure - clean the
contacts. Even inferior connectors are self cleaning.

A connector inside a computer, fixed by cleaning, means a problem
exists elsewhere. Technicians cleaning contacts with an eraser (or
even worse, steel wool - which quickly got one tech removed) need
reeducation or a new assignment. We could never put up with 'eraser
repairs' because anything that went out the door had to always work.

More amazing is a fifty some year old tech whose only technical
proof is a hysterical declaration - a denial and nothing more. Who
still did not learn basic connector concepts. Who would post replies
that are attacks rather than explain the science. He still has not
explained by why routine design permits corrosion problems without
failure. Proper design makes connector corrosion irrelevant.

Any design must work fine with normal contact corrosion. And then
that corrosion is eliminated by reseating.

Let's see. How many ohms resistance is created by corrosion? How
many volts exist across that corroded contact? Why did others not
provide numbers? Those who are curing problems with an eraser just
know. Junk science requires one to know without any numbers. It
looks dirty. Therefore cleaning with an eraser must fix it. Classic
junk science reasoning. Where does he provide any numbers to prove
his point? Oh. He just knows that contacts need routine cleaning
with an eraser.

Yes, making a change to modify symptoms of a failure will help
isolate the actual defect. However, once that change is made, other
important facts are lost. A naive tech will fix it by cleaning
contact with an eraser rather than first locate the defect. If it
works, then an eraser fixed it? Nonsense. That is a first thing
that a first year tech learns to not do - waste time cleaning
contacts.

If reseating does not clean contacts, then we have a serious design
defect AND eliminate that connector on everything. Every minimally
acceptable connector is self cleaning. Amazing that a tech that old
still did not learn these basic concepts. Junk science is alive and
well.

[[email protected]]

On Dec 19, 5:06*pm, "FromTheRafters" >
wrote:
> Which is exactly why reseating connectors is a good troubleshooting
> procedure. I was always told not to use an eraser or steel wool to
> clean contacts (it only wears them out more than need be. A cotton
> swab with the proper solvent will remove crud).

Cleaning contacts means diagnostic information provided by a
normally corroded contact is lost. Curing symptoms only makes a defect
harder to locate. If contacts create a failure, then corrosion helps
find the real defect.

Notice what was posted previously and again. First collect facts
before reseating, etc. Reseating does not fix it. Reseating is
simply another symptom to track down a real defect. Unfortunately
some techs remain so naive as to even use an eraser or, as you said,
wear down the contacts in some naive belief that dirty means failure.

Connector technology is well proven and well understood from
manufacturer app notes. Educating technicians is part of the job.
Smarter technicians catch on quick. Connectors are self cleaning. If
cleaning with solvent stops a failure, the defect still exists.

Cited was an example that any tech with experience long ago
understood. GM had computer failures due to cheap connectors.
Replacing computers would (temporarily) fix the failure - clean the
contacts. Even inferior connectors are self cleaning.

A connector inside a computer, fixed by cleaning, means a problem
exists elsewhere. Technicians cleaning contacts with an eraser (or
even worse, steel wool - which quickly got one tech removed) need
reeducation or a new assignment. We could never put up with 'eraser
repairs' because anything that went out the door had to always work.

More amazing is a fifty some year old tech whose only technical
proof is a hysterical declaration - a denial and nothing more. Who
still did not learn basic connector concepts. Who would post replies
that are attacks rather than explain the science. He still has not
explained by why routine design permits corrosion problems without
failure. Proper design makes connector corrosion irrelevant.

Any design must work fine with normal contact corrosion. And then
that corrosion is eliminated by reseating.

Let's see. How many ohms resistance is created by corrosion? How
many volts exist across that corroded contact? Why did others not
provide numbers? Those who are curing problems with an eraser just
know. Junk science requires one to know without any numbers. It
looks dirty. Therefore cleaning with an eraser must fix it. Classic
junk science reasoning. Where does he provide any numbers to prove
his point? Oh. He just knows that contacts need routine cleaning
with an eraser.

Yes, making a change to modify symptoms of a failure will help
isolate the actual defect. However, once that change is made, other
important facts are lost. A naive tech will fix it by cleaning
contact with an eraser rather than first locate the defect. If it
works, then an eraser fixed it? Nonsense. That is a first thing
that a first year tech learns to not do - waste time cleaning
contacts.

If reseating does not clean contacts, then we have a serious design
defect AND eliminate that connector on everything. Every minimally
acceptable connector is self cleaning. Amazing that a tech that old
still did not learn these basic concepts. Junk science is alive and
well.

[FromTheRafters[_2_]]

Here is another example of what I meant regarding my "tech" versus
"engineer" comments.

I (as a repair tech) discovered an odd defect in the hold down (clamp)
mechanism for an old optical CD player. In addition to occasionally
"quitting" for no apparent reason - I noticed the total time display after
initializing was sometimes way off (doubled I believe - but never did
the math).

I applied a stethoscope method (actually an AudioTechnica phono
pickup taped to the drive's chassis) and displayed that on channel
A of my dual-trace o'scope. Channel B had the tracking error TE
test point signal.

Hours of Kenny Rogers, Tina Turner, and Herb Alpert later I got
my symptoms to manifest while test equipment was looking.

It turned out that replacing a 'thrust pad' I think they called it would
repair the unit. The pad pressed down on a ball seated on the top of
the top "clamp" and after years of use the pad developed an indent
and allowed the ball to wobble within the cup of the indent. This was
the cause of the "quitting" (which showed up as a howling audio sig
on channel A and a wildly erratic TE on B) and a replacement part
effected the "repair".

The manufacturer thanked me for my submitted paperwork detailing
the "repair" and informed me that new repair parts will now be made
with different 'stiffer' material. Now, *that* is an engineer's repair. My
repair didn't get rid of the *real* problem it only masked the symptom
of harmonic resonance between the spindle speed and the ball and 'cup'
precession.

My repair, using the old part, would probably outlast the laser and so
is an effective repair. Next service call on that machine would include
the "field change" to the new part. This also demonstrates the value of
feedback from actual field repair technicians to the engineers so that
the technology can improve.


> wrote in message
...
On Dec 19, 5:06 pm, "FromTheRafters" >
wrote:
> Which is exactly why reseating connectors is a good troubleshooting
> procedure. I was always told not to use an eraser or steel wool to
> clean contacts (it only wears them out more than need be. A cotton
> swab with the proper solvent will remove crud).

Cleaning contacts means diagnostic information provided by a
normally corroded contact is lost. Curing symptoms only makes a defect
harder to locate. If contacts create a failure, then corrosion helps
find the real defect.

Notice what was posted previously and again. First collect facts
before reseating, etc. Reseating does not fix it. Reseating is
simply another symptom to track down a real defect. Unfortunately
some techs remain so naive as to even use an eraser or, as you said,
wear down the contacts in some naive belief that dirty means failure.

Connector technology is well proven and well understood from
manufacturer app notes. Educating technicians is part of the job.
Smarter technicians catch on quick. Connectors are self cleaning. If
cleaning with solvent stops a failure, the defect still exists.

Cited was an example that any tech with experience long ago
understood. GM had computer failures due to cheap connectors.
Replacing computers would (temporarily) fix the failure - clean the
contacts. Even inferior connectors are self cleaning.

A connector inside a computer, fixed by cleaning, means a problem
exists elsewhere. Technicians cleaning contacts with an eraser (or
even worse, steel wool - which quickly got one tech removed) need
reeducation or a new assignment. We could never put up with 'eraser
repairs' because anything that went out the door had to always work.

More amazing is a fifty some year old tech whose only technical
proof is a hysterical declaration - a denial and nothing more. Who
still did not learn basic connector concepts. Who would post replies
that are attacks rather than explain the science. He still has not
explained by why routine design permits corrosion problems without
failure. Proper design makes connector corrosion irrelevant.

Any design must work fine with normal contact corrosion. And then
that corrosion is eliminated by reseating.

Let's see. How many ohms resistance is created by corrosion? How
many volts exist across that corroded contact? Why did others not
provide numbers? Those who are curing problems with an eraser just
know. Junk science requires one to know without any numbers. It
looks dirty. Therefore cleaning with an eraser must fix it. Classic
junk science reasoning. Where does he provide any numbers to prove
his point? Oh. He just knows that contacts need routine cleaning
with an eraser.

Yes, making a change to modify symptoms of a failure will help
isolate the actual defect. However, once that change is made, other
important facts are lost. A naive tech will fix it by cleaning
contact with an eraser rather than first locate the defect. If it
works, then an eraser fixed it? Nonsense. That is a first thing
that a first year tech learns to not do - waste time cleaning
contacts.

If reseating does not clean contacts, then we have a serious design
defect AND eliminate that connector on everything. Every minimally
acceptable connector is self cleaning. Amazing that a tech that old
still did not learn these basic concepts. Junk science is alive and
well.

[FromTheRafters[_2_]]

Here is another example of what I meant regarding my "tech" versus
"engineer" comments.

I (as a repair tech) discovered an odd defect in the hold down (clamp)
mechanism for an old optical CD player. In addition to occasionally
"quitting" for no apparent reason - I noticed the total time display after
initializing was sometimes way off (doubled I believe - but never did
the math).

I applied a stethoscope method (actually an AudioTechnica phono
pickup taped to the drive's chassis) and displayed that on channel
A of my dual-trace o'scope. Channel B had the tracking error TE
test point signal.

Hours of Kenny Rogers, Tina Turner, and Herb Alpert later I got
my symptoms to manifest while test equipment was looking.

It turned out that replacing a 'thrust pad' I think they called it would
repair the unit. The pad pressed down on a ball seated on the top of
the top "clamp" and after years of use the pad developed an indent
and allowed the ball to wobble within the cup of the indent. This was
the cause of the "quitting" (which showed up as a howling audio sig
on channel A and a wildly erratic TE on B) and a replacement part
effected the "repair".

The manufacturer thanked me for my submitted paperwork detailing
the "repair" and informed me that new repair parts will now be made
with different 'stiffer' material. Now, *that* is an engineer's repair. My
repair didn't get rid of the *real* problem it only masked the symptom
of harmonic resonance between the spindle speed and the ball and 'cup'
precession.

My repair, using the old part, would probably outlast the laser and so
is an effective repair. Next service call on that machine would include
the "field change" to the new part. This also demonstrates the value of
feedback from actual field repair technicians to the engineers so that
the technology can improve.


> wrote in message
...
On Dec 19, 5:06 pm, "FromTheRafters" >
wrote:
> Which is exactly why reseating connectors is a good troubleshooting
> procedure. I was always told not to use an eraser or steel wool to
> clean contacts (it only wears them out more than need be. A cotton
> swab with the proper solvent will remove crud).

Cleaning contacts means diagnostic information provided by a
normally corroded contact is lost. Curing symptoms only makes a defect
harder to locate. If contacts create a failure, then corrosion helps
find the real defect.

Notice what was posted previously and again. First collect facts
before reseating, etc. Reseating does not fix it. Reseating is
simply another symptom to track down a real defect. Unfortunately
some techs remain so naive as to even use an eraser or, as you said,
wear down the contacts in some naive belief that dirty means failure.

Connector technology is well proven and well understood from
manufacturer app notes. Educating technicians is part of the job.
Smarter technicians catch on quick. Connectors are self cleaning. If
cleaning with solvent stops a failure, the defect still exists.

Cited was an example that any tech with experience long ago
understood. GM had computer failures due to cheap connectors.
Replacing computers would (temporarily) fix the failure - clean the
contacts. Even inferior connectors are self cleaning.

A connector inside a computer, fixed by cleaning, means a problem
exists elsewhere. Technicians cleaning contacts with an eraser (or
even worse, steel wool - which quickly got one tech removed) need
reeducation or a new assignment. We could never put up with 'eraser
repairs' because anything that went out the door had to always work.

More amazing is a fifty some year old tech whose only technical
proof is a hysterical declaration - a denial and nothing more. Who
still did not learn basic connector concepts. Who would post replies
that are attacks rather than explain the science. He still has not
explained by why routine design permits corrosion problems without
failure. Proper design makes connector corrosion irrelevant.

Any design must work fine with normal contact corrosion. And then
that corrosion is eliminated by reseating.

Let's see. How many ohms resistance is created by corrosion? How
many volts exist across that corroded contact? Why did others not
provide numbers? Those who are curing problems with an eraser just
know. Junk science requires one to know without any numbers. It
looks dirty. Therefore cleaning with an eraser must fix it. Classic
junk science reasoning. Where does he provide any numbers to prove
his point? Oh. He just knows that contacts need routine cleaning
with an eraser.

Yes, making a change to modify symptoms of a failure will help
isolate the actual defect. However, once that change is made, other
important facts are lost. A naive tech will fix it by cleaning
contact with an eraser rather than first locate the defect. If it
works, then an eraser fixed it? Nonsense. That is a first thing
that a first year tech learns to not do - waste time cleaning
contacts.

If reseating does not clean contacts, then we have a serious design
defect AND eliminate that connector on everything. Every minimally
acceptable connector is self cleaning. Amazing that a tech that old
still did not learn these basic concepts. Junk science is alive and
well.

[[email protected]]

On Dec 20, 11:27*am, "FromTheRafters" >
wrote:
> Here is another example of what I meant regarding my "tech" versus
> "engineer" comments.
> ...
> This also demonstrates the value of feedback from actual field
> repair technicians to the engineers so that the technology can
> improve.

Your example is not about ‘tech versus engineer’. Your example is
about communication and the many who know without first learning. For
example, why does SouthWest Air do so well? The president even
periodically works as a steward on his airliners. Why did Wal-Mart
foresee an impending Christmas disaster last year? A Wal-Mart
executive working as a bagger in a store in late November suspected a
problem, confirmed it with the numbers, and averted a Christmas
disaster. Lieutenants who 'lived' in Nam would routinely first
consult with their Sergeants.

Meanwhile, an informed tech or engineer learns from manufacturer
datasheets and application notes. Well documented is how a connector
will change with corrosion - so that a design can compensate for
normal degradation. Well documented were app notes discussing self
cleaning connectors.

One problem often found with many corporations - they cannot be
bothered with feedback from the field as in your example. It's a
shame, often traceable to a technically naive staff, and a reason for
bankruptcy.

[[email protected]]

On Dec 20, 11:27*am, "FromTheRafters" >
wrote:
> Here is another example of what I meant regarding my "tech" versus
> "engineer" comments.
> ...
> This also demonstrates the value of feedback from actual field
> repair technicians to the engineers so that the technology can
> improve.

Your example is not about ‘tech versus engineer’. Your example is
about communication and the many who know without first learning. For
example, why does SouthWest Air do so well? The president even
periodically works as a steward on his airliners. Why did Wal-Mart
foresee an impending Christmas disaster last year? A Wal-Mart
executive working as a bagger in a store in late November suspected a
problem, confirmed it with the numbers, and averted a Christmas
disaster. Lieutenants who 'lived' in Nam would routinely first
consult with their Sergeants.

Meanwhile, an informed tech or engineer learns from manufacturer
datasheets and application notes. Well documented is how a connector
will change with corrosion - so that a design can compensate for
normal degradation. Well documented were app notes discussing self
cleaning connectors.

One problem often found with many corporations - they cannot be
bothered with feedback from the field as in your example. It's a
shame, often traceable to a technically naive staff, and a reason for
bankruptcy.

[Buffalo]

wrote:
> On Dec 19, 5:06 pm, "FromTheRafters" >
> wrote:
>> Which is exactly why reseating connectors is a good troubleshooting
>> procedure. I was always told not to use an eraser or steel wool to
>> clean contacts (it only wears them out more than need be. A cotton
>> swab with the proper solvent will remove crud).
>
> Cleaning contacts means diagnostic information provided by a
> normally corroded contact is lost. Curing symptoms only makes a defect
> harder to locate. If contacts create a failure, then corrosion helps
> find the real defect.
>
> Notice what was posted previously and again. First collect facts
> before reseating, etc. Reseating does not fix it. Reseating is
> simply another symptom to track down a real defect. Unfortunately
> some techs remain so naive as to even use an eraser or, as you said,
> wear down the contacts in some naive belief that dirty means failure.
>
> Connector technology is well proven and well understood from
> manufacturer app notes. Educating technicians is part of the job.
> Smarter technicians catch on quick. Connectors are self cleaning. If
> cleaning with solvent stops a failure, the defect still exists.
>
> Cited was an example that any tech with experience long ago
> understood. GM had computer failures due to cheap connectors.
> Replacing computers would (temporarily) fix the failure - clean the
> contacts. Even inferior connectors are self cleaning.
>
> A connector inside a computer, fixed by cleaning, means a problem
> exists elsewhere. Technicians cleaning contacts with an eraser (or
> even worse, steel wool - which quickly got one tech removed) need
> reeducation or a new assignment. We could never put up with 'eraser
> repairs' because anything that went out the door had to always work.
>
> More amazing is a fifty some year old tech whose only technical
> proof is a hysterical declaration - a denial and nothing more. Who
> still did not learn basic connector concepts. Who would post replies
> that are attacks rather than explain the science. He still has not
> explained by why routine design permits corrosion problems without
> failure. Proper design makes connector corrosion irrelevant.
>
> Any design must work fine with normal contact corrosion. And then
> that corrosion is eliminated by reseating.
>
> Let's see. How many ohms resistance is created by corrosion? How
> many volts exist across that corroded contact? Why did others not
> provide numbers? Those who are curing problems with an eraser just
> know. Junk science requires one to know without any numbers. It
> looks dirty. Therefore cleaning with an eraser must fix it. Classic
> junk science reasoning. Where does he provide any numbers to prove
> his point? Oh. He just knows that contacts need routine cleaning
> with an eraser.
>
> Yes, making a change to modify symptoms of a failure will help
> isolate the actual defect. However, once that change is made, other
> important facts are lost. A naive tech will fix it by cleaning
> contact with an eraser rather than first locate the defect. If it
> works, then an eraser fixed it? Nonsense. That is a first thing
> that a first year tech learns to not do - waste time cleaning
> contacts.
>
> If reseating does not clean contacts, then we have a serious design
> defect AND eliminate that connector on everything. Every minimally
> acceptable connector is self cleaning. Amazing that a tech that old
> still did not learn these basic concepts. Junk science is alive and
> well.
Perhaps you could explain this: a problem is 'corrected' by removing and
reseating the ram sticks. It is still working fine 2 yrs down the road. What
did doing the above hurt, except saving the user a 'bunch' of money?
You're idea of taking everything to a tech is bs.

[Buffalo]

wrote:
> On Dec 19, 5:06 pm, "FromTheRafters" >
> wrote:
>> Which is exactly why reseating connectors is a good troubleshooting
>> procedure. I was always told not to use an eraser or steel wool to
>> clean contacts (it only wears them out more than need be. A cotton
>> swab with the proper solvent will remove crud).
>
> Cleaning contacts means diagnostic information provided by a
> normally corroded contact is lost. Curing symptoms only makes a defect
> harder to locate. If contacts create a failure, then corrosion helps
> find the real defect.
>
> Notice what was posted previously and again. First collect facts
> before reseating, etc. Reseating does not fix it. Reseating is
> simply another symptom to track down a real defect. Unfortunately
> some techs remain so naive as to even use an eraser or, as you said,
> wear down the contacts in some naive belief that dirty means failure.
>
> Connector technology is well proven and well understood from
> manufacturer app notes. Educating technicians is part of the job.
> Smarter technicians catch on quick. Connectors are self cleaning. If
> cleaning with solvent stops a failure, the defect still exists.
>
> Cited was an example that any tech with experience long ago
> understood. GM had computer failures due to cheap connectors.
> Replacing computers would (temporarily) fix the failure - clean the
> contacts. Even inferior connectors are self cleaning.
>
> A connector inside a computer, fixed by cleaning, means a problem
> exists elsewhere. Technicians cleaning contacts with an eraser (or
> even worse, steel wool - which quickly got one tech removed) need
> reeducation or a new assignment. We could never put up with 'eraser
> repairs' because anything that went out the door had to always work.
>
> More amazing is a fifty some year old tech whose only technical
> proof is a hysterical declaration - a denial and nothing more. Who
> still did not learn basic connector concepts. Who would post replies
> that are attacks rather than explain the science. He still has not
> explained by why routine design permits corrosion problems without
> failure. Proper design makes connector corrosion irrelevant.
>
> Any design must work fine with normal contact corrosion. And then
> that corrosion is eliminated by reseating.
>
> Let's see. How many ohms resistance is created by corrosion? How
> many volts exist across that corroded contact? Why did others not
> provide numbers? Those who are curing problems with an eraser just
> know. Junk science requires one to know without any numbers. It
> looks dirty. Therefore cleaning with an eraser must fix it. Classic
> junk science reasoning. Where does he provide any numbers to prove
> his point? Oh. He just knows that contacts need routine cleaning
> with an eraser.
>
> Yes, making a change to modify symptoms of a failure will help
> isolate the actual defect. However, once that change is made, other
> important facts are lost. A naive tech will fix it by cleaning
> contact with an eraser rather than first locate the defect. If it
> works, then an eraser fixed it? Nonsense. That is a first thing
> that a first year tech learns to not do - waste time cleaning
> contacts.
>
> If reseating does not clean contacts, then we have a serious design
> defect AND eliminate that connector on everything. Every minimally
> acceptable connector is self cleaning. Amazing that a tech that old
> still did not learn these basic concepts. Junk science is alive and
> well.
Perhaps you could explain this: a problem is 'corrected' by removing and
reseating the ram sticks. It is still working fine 2 yrs down the road. What
did doing the above hurt, except saving the user a 'bunch' of money?
You're idea of taking everything to a tech is bs.

[MEB[_2_]]

Answer the question placed, don't walk to another just because you presume
to have found support... why do you believe environmentally controlled areas
are required for server farms and the like?

DOCUMENT the supposed claim you made. Submit it to EVERY IT professional and
professional maintenance party across the world... they would LOVE to have
you proof that connectors are self cleaning and they needn't bother with
regular maintenance regarding them. The FAA and military would also love
this exacting proof.

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org
a Peoples' counsel

Windows diagnostics/Security/Networking:
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
_ _
~~
> wrote in message
...
On Dec 19, 5:06 pm, "FromTheRafters" >
wrote:
> Which is exactly why reseating connectors is a good troubleshooting
> procedure. I was always told not to use an eraser or steel wool to
> clean contacts (it only wears them out more than need be. A cotton
> swab with the proper solvent will remove crud).

Cleaning contacts means diagnostic information provided by a
normally corroded contact is lost. Curing symptoms only makes a defect
harder to locate. If contacts create a failure, then corrosion helps
find the real defect.

Notice what was posted previously and again. First collect facts
before reseating, etc. Reseating does not fix it. Reseating is
simply another symptom to track down a real defect. Unfortunately
some techs remain so naive as to even use an eraser or, as you said,
wear down the contacts in some naive belief that dirty means failure.

Connector technology is well proven and well understood from
manufacturer app notes. Educating technicians is part of the job.
Smarter technicians catch on quick. Connectors are self cleaning. If
cleaning with solvent stops a failure, the defect still exists.

Cited was an example that any tech with experience long ago
understood. GM had computer failures due to cheap connectors.
Replacing computers would (temporarily) fix the failure - clean the
contacts. Even inferior connectors are self cleaning.

A connector inside a computer, fixed by cleaning, means a problem
exists elsewhere. Technicians cleaning contacts with an eraser (or
even worse, steel wool - which quickly got one tech removed) need
reeducation or a new assignment. We could never put up with 'eraser
repairs' because anything that went out the door had to always work.

More amazing is a fifty some year old tech whose only technical
proof is a hysterical declaration - a denial and nothing more. Who
still did not learn basic connector concepts. Who would post replies
that are attacks rather than explain the science. He still has not
explained by why routine design permits corrosion problems without
failure. Proper design makes connector corrosion irrelevant.

Any design must work fine with normal contact corrosion. And then
that corrosion is eliminated by reseating.

Let's see. How many ohms resistance is created by corrosion? How
many volts exist across that corroded contact? Why did others not
provide numbers? Those who are curing problems with an eraser just
know. Junk science requires one to know without any numbers. It
looks dirty. Therefore cleaning with an eraser must fix it. Classic
junk science reasoning. Where does he provide any numbers to prove
his point? Oh. He just knows that contacts need routine cleaning
with an eraser.

Yes, making a change to modify symptoms of a failure will help
isolate the actual defect. However, once that change is made, other
important facts are lost. A naive tech will fix it by cleaning
contact with an eraser rather than first locate the defect. If it
works, then an eraser fixed it? Nonsense. That is a first thing
that a first year tech learns to not do - waste time cleaning
contacts.

If reseating does not clean contacts, then we have a serious design
defect AND eliminate that connector on everything. Every minimally
acceptable connector is self cleaning. Amazing that a tech that old
still did not learn these basic concepts. Junk science is alive and
well.

[MEB[_2_]]

Answer the question placed, don't walk to another just because you presume
to have found support... why do you believe environmentally controlled areas
are required for server farms and the like?

DOCUMENT the supposed claim you made. Submit it to EVERY IT professional and
professional maintenance party across the world... they would LOVE to have
you proof that connectors are self cleaning and they needn't bother with
regular maintenance regarding them. The FAA and military would also love
this exacting proof.

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org
a Peoples' counsel

Windows diagnostics/Security/Networking:
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
_ _
~~
> wrote in message
...
On Dec 19, 5:06 pm, "FromTheRafters" >
wrote:
> Which is exactly why reseating connectors is a good troubleshooting
> procedure. I was always told not to use an eraser or steel wool to
> clean contacts (it only wears them out more than need be. A cotton
> swab with the proper solvent will remove crud).

Cleaning contacts means diagnostic information provided by a
normally corroded contact is lost. Curing symptoms only makes a defect
harder to locate. If contacts create a failure, then corrosion helps
find the real defect.

Notice what was posted previously and again. First collect facts
before reseating, etc. Reseating does not fix it. Reseating is
simply another symptom to track down a real defect. Unfortunately
some techs remain so naive as to even use an eraser or, as you said,
wear down the contacts in some naive belief that dirty means failure.

Connector technology is well proven and well understood from
manufacturer app notes. Educating technicians is part of the job.
Smarter technicians catch on quick. Connectors are self cleaning. If
cleaning with solvent stops a failure, the defect still exists.

Cited was an example that any tech with experience long ago
understood. GM had computer failures due to cheap connectors.
Replacing computers would (temporarily) fix the failure - clean the
contacts. Even inferior connectors are self cleaning.

A connector inside a computer, fixed by cleaning, means a problem
exists elsewhere. Technicians cleaning contacts with an eraser (or
even worse, steel wool - which quickly got one tech removed) need
reeducation or a new assignment. We could never put up with 'eraser
repairs' because anything that went out the door had to always work.

More amazing is a fifty some year old tech whose only technical
proof is a hysterical declaration - a denial and nothing more. Who
still did not learn basic connector concepts. Who would post replies
that are attacks rather than explain the science. He still has not
explained by why routine design permits corrosion problems without
failure. Proper design makes connector corrosion irrelevant.

Any design must work fine with normal contact corrosion. And then
that corrosion is eliminated by reseating.

Let's see. How many ohms resistance is created by corrosion? How
many volts exist across that corroded contact? Why did others not
provide numbers? Those who are curing problems with an eraser just
know. Junk science requires one to know without any numbers. It
looks dirty. Therefore cleaning with an eraser must fix it. Classic
junk science reasoning. Where does he provide any numbers to prove
his point? Oh. He just knows that contacts need routine cleaning
with an eraser.

Yes, making a change to modify symptoms of a failure will help
isolate the actual defect. However, once that change is made, other
important facts are lost. A naive tech will fix it by cleaning
contact with an eraser rather than first locate the defect. If it
works, then an eraser fixed it? Nonsense. That is a first thing
that a first year tech learns to not do - waste time cleaning
contacts.

If reseating does not clean contacts, then we have a serious design
defect AND eliminate that connector on everything. Every minimally
acceptable connector is self cleaning. Amazing that a tech that old
still did not learn these basic concepts. Junk science is alive and
well.

[[email protected]]

On Dec 21, 3:11*am, "MEB" <meb@not > wrote:
> Answer the question placed, don't walk to another just because you presume
> to have found support... why do you believe environmentally controlled areas
> are required for server farms and the like?

So you cannot dispute that electronic design includes normal
corrosion in the design parameters. Normal contact corrosion must
never cause electronics failures. AND that connectors are also self
cleaning - making corrosion further irrelevant. OK. Now we have an
agreement.

Do you walk into a server farm in white lab coats, hair nets, or
masks? That was required in environmentally controlled areas such as
aerospace equipment that also must work just fine in far harsher
environments. So what? What is your point other than to ignore what
every responsible connector manufacturer provides in spec sheets and
application notes? A tech caught cleaning contacts with an eraser to
fix electronics will quickly find himself in retraining or
reassigned.

Cleaning contacts with an eraser provides the OP with no useful
solution to his problem. But it does promote another classic urban
myth.

[[email protected]]

On Dec 21, 3:11*am, "MEB" <meb@not > wrote:
> Answer the question placed, don't walk to another just because you presume
> to have found support... why do you believe environmentally controlled areas
> are required for server farms and the like?

So you cannot dispute that electronic design includes normal
corrosion in the design parameters. Normal contact corrosion must
never cause electronics failures. AND that connectors are also self
cleaning - making corrosion further irrelevant. OK. Now we have an
agreement.

Do you walk into a server farm in white lab coats, hair nets, or
masks? That was required in environmentally controlled areas such as
aerospace equipment that also must work just fine in far harsher
environments. So what? What is your point other than to ignore what
every responsible connector manufacturer provides in spec sheets and
application notes? A tech caught cleaning contacts with an eraser to
fix electronics will quickly find himself in retraining or
reassigned.

Cleaning contacts with an eraser provides the OP with no useful
solution to his problem. But it does promote another classic urban
myth.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message
>,
writes:
> Yes, as stated previously, some problems such as a missing AC noise
>filters will not be detected. But those are outside the context of
>this discussion. Multimeter also will not detect a stolen
>presidential election. That too is outside the context. A
>multimeter will always locate a supply defect that causes the system
>to not boot or work reliably. The meter either says the supply is
>perfectly good - move on to other suspect. Or the meter says this
>power supply is defective - must be replaced. Both are definitive
>answers.

Meter will identify a supply producing low (or high) voltages, if the
supply is doing so steadily. No argument there.

What it will _not_ identify is a supply with an _intermittent_ fault -
either a loose connection, or one that only shows up under certain
circumstances of load (such as a drive starting up for the 12V line,
though that's less critical).
>
> As stated both from what is being measured AND from decades of
>experience, that 'fast pulse' is detected if the supply is
>insufficient. There is no one fast pulse. If that fast pulse exists.
>It exists repeatedly. Any fast pulse that a power supply can (and
>must) handle is made irrelevant by low pass filters. If the fast
>pulse is problematic, then a multimeter will report it. If a power
>supply is properly sized, the fast pulse is normal and acceptable
>operation - does not create 'out of spec' voltages - does not crash a
>computer.

If by "fast pulse" you mean a sudden surge of demand, then yes, _if_ you
can make the computer do whatever it is doing (to cause that surge) when
it fails, and do it repeatedly and rapidly, then yes, you might see the
problem on your meter. However, a lot of the time, (a) it is something
that might only occur after half an hour's use, (b) the user may very
well not know what exactly the computer was doing when it fails - it may
happen when unattended. For such a rare occurrence, even if you happen
to be looking at a meter when it happens, if the failure causes the
computer to reboot or freeze - which it often does - then the demand
taken by the computer will change, usually dropping to a low level
(except on the 12V line if it causes a reboot which may make drives
spin), thus removing the cause of the problem. Until next time.

Of course, if you test the power supply by disconnecting it from the
computer and connecting it to a load box that draws the maximum rated
current on all rails, and while doing that measure the voltages, this
won't apply, but most repair facilities don't have such a load (not
least because it's a big thing). [i]
>
> Experience AND the concepts behind this diagnostic procedure
>demonstrate why smarter (better trained) techs use the meter and avoid
>shotgunning. If the meter was not detecting all relevant failures,

You keep using this term "shotgunning", but you haven't said what you
mean by it yet.

>then why was it performing reliably - identifying defects 100% of the
>time?

Because you've been lucky, or have blamed other failures on something
else?
>
> How to find those failing (bulging) capacitors before capacitors
>cause computer failure? The multimeter. Yes, a multimeter would not
>detect those defective capacitors before the defect became apparent.
>No measureable defect existed yet. So yes, one can complain that
>'what will become defective' capacitors were not detected by the
>meter. But the discussion here is how to find currently defective
>power supplies; also before a defect becomes worse and crashes a
>computer. Locating a defect in but minutes or seconds. Solving

If the caps in the supply have gone that far, then yes. (They don't all
bulge; caps can lose capacity and show no outward sign.)

>computer problems maybe 5 times faster than what can be achieved by
>shotgunning.

That term again (-:
>
> Clearly, the meter is a superior solution compared to the so popular
>method called shotgunning - for multiple reasons already provided.

And again
>
> 2.5 digits (analog meter) is insufficient. 3.5 digits (a standard
>multimeter) is necessary because of what is being measured.

I very much doubt you'd be able to read an analogue meter to 2.5 digits!
Except near full-scale, and probably with a large mirror scale. I'd say
2.5 digits - as long as the first isn't 0, i. e. as long as the meter
has enough ranges - is enough for this purpose; the noise on a PC's
power rails means anything finer is pointless anyway. However, it is
academic - as you say, meters you can get are probably mostly 3 digits
anyway nowadays.
>
> Shotgunning - replacing parts on spec? I don't now what that

Now you see how I feel ... (-:

>means. If a power supply is out of spec (relevant parameters), then a
>multimeter should discover it. Shotgunning is replacing a power
>supply regardless of whether the original supply is or is not 'in

Ah, at last; I _thought_ that was what you meant, but nice to have it
confirmed.

>spec'. Shotgunning is fixing something only on wild speculation.
>Computer does not start. Wild speculations – automatically blame and
>replace the power supply – is shotgunning.
[]
I see - I suppose it is by analogy of shooting with a shotgun, on the
basis that one pellet might hit.

(The expression I used above - "on spec" - is a [perhaps British?]
expression meaning much the same; I'm not sure where it comes from -
possibly "speculation", certainly not "specification".)

Now, connectors. I wasn't going to join in this argument, but I can't
resist! My main job function at the moment involves supporting old
equipment (mostly avionics, not PCs), often decades old.

AMP, by the way, are now part of Tyco electronics (not to be confused
with Tyco).

Connectors _are_ self-cleaning _to some extent_: the wiping action of
them being inserted and removed will often clean off some of whatever is
preventing them from making good contact. Once made and static, this of
course does not apply. _Usually_, _if_ the mating surfaces were springy
and clean enough in the first place, they should remain making good
contact. However, springiness does reduce in time, and of course there
_is_ vibration in PCs.

Removing and reseating _will_ often scrape through the contamination and
restore a good contact. Whether this has solved the problem or just "got
it working" is a matter for argument; it _hasn't_ fixed the source of
corrosion if there is one (a smoker in the room?), it _hasn't_ restored
and spring pressure that is missing. Conversely, it _may_ make the unit
continue to work for the remaining life of the equipment - it depends
how sure the customer wants to be, and how much they are willing to pay.
I would make sure they are told that that was what was done, in the case
of a PC. (For avionics, quite apart from the safety considerations
anyway, I'd want to check on the springiness, because they are subject
to a lot more vibration. But if that means replacement of the connector,
that means quite a bit of downtime - assuming a new connector of the
same type can still be obtained at all.)

Removing and reseating _will_ also wear the contacts - as will cleaning
them (whether with wire wool or an eraser; a solvent is better).
However, the benefit may outweigh the disadvantage; if the contamination
can clearly be seen and removed, this probably _is_ a solution.

Connectors are _designed_ to be re-made several times. For DIN41612 and
D-type connectors, it basically depends on the thickness of the gold
plating: for the highest grade (either III or I, I can't remember which
way it goes), they have about 5 microns of gold, which is good for
several hundred mating cycles. The lowest grade are just gold "flashed",
and generally those are considered to have no more than about 5 cycles
in them. For things not intended to be plugged in and out many times,
grade II or the lowest is probably adequate, and certainly cheaper (by
quite a bit). Things like peripheral cards for PCs probably have such a
coating, I don't know; one would hope that the _socket_ connections have
a thicker coating, likewise the drive connectors and any other part that
is likely to be disturbed several times in its lifetime. I have also
seen cards (especially memory modules) that have "bright tin" finish
rather than gold; again, this is valid for some uses.

Basically, what I'm saying is: let's be sensible about this, and not get
on our high horses and say "anybody who does xxx should be
shot/sacked/whatever". All techniques - plugging/unplugging, cleaning
(though not I would say with wire brush!), and even the dreaded
replacing-on-spec ("shotgunning"?) have their place. There are times
when "get it working no matter what you do - but quickly" applies; there
are times when "get it working but spend as little as possible" applies;
and there are times - few, I suspect - when "_fix_ it, and tell me what
was wrong so I can reduce the chance of it happening again" applies.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

"Forget computers; it's hard enough getting humans to pass the Turing test."
- David Bedno

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message
>,
writes:
> Yes, as stated previously, some problems such as a missing AC noise
>filters will not be detected. But those are outside the context of
>this discussion. Multimeter also will not detect a stolen
>presidential election. That too is outside the context. A
>multimeter will always locate a supply defect that causes the system
>to not boot or work reliably. The meter either says the supply is
>perfectly good - move on to other suspect. Or the meter says this
>power supply is defective - must be replaced. Both are definitive
>answers.

Meter will identify a supply producing low (or high) voltages, if the
supply is doing so steadily. No argument there.

What it will _not_ identify is a supply with an _intermittent_ fault -
either a loose connection, or one that only shows up under certain
circumstances of load (such as a drive starting up for the 12V line,
though that's less critical).
>
> As stated both from what is being measured AND from decades of
>experience, that 'fast pulse' is detected if the supply is
>insufficient. There is no one fast pulse. If that fast pulse exists.
>It exists repeatedly. Any fast pulse that a power supply can (and
>must) handle is made irrelevant by low pass filters. If the fast
>pulse is problematic, then a multimeter will report it. If a power
>supply is properly sized, the fast pulse is normal and acceptable
>operation - does not create 'out of spec' voltages - does not crash a
>computer.

If by "fast pulse" you mean a sudden surge of demand, then yes, _if_ you
can make the computer do whatever it is doing (to cause that surge) when
it fails, and do it repeatedly and rapidly, then yes, you might see the
problem on your meter. However, a lot of the time, (a) it is something
that might only occur after half an hour's use, (b) the user may very
well not know what exactly the computer was doing when it fails - it may
happen when unattended. For such a rare occurrence, even if you happen
to be looking at a meter when it happens, if the failure causes the
computer to reboot or freeze - which it often does - then the demand
taken by the computer will change, usually dropping to a low level
(except on the 12V line if it causes a reboot which may make drives
spin), thus removing the cause of the problem. Until next time.

Of course, if you test the power supply by disconnecting it from the
computer and connecting it to a load box that draws the maximum rated
current on all rails, and while doing that measure the voltages, this
won't apply, but most repair facilities don't have such a load (not
least because it's a big thing). [i]
>
> Experience AND the concepts behind this diagnostic procedure
>demonstrate why smarter (better trained) techs use the meter and avoid
>shotgunning. If the meter was not detecting all relevant failures,

You keep using this term "shotgunning", but you haven't said what you
mean by it yet.

>then why was it performing reliably - identifying defects 100% of the
>time?

Because you've been lucky, or have blamed other failures on something
else?
>
> How to find those failing (bulging) capacitors before capacitors
>cause computer failure? The multimeter. Yes, a multimeter would not
>detect those defective capacitors before the defect became apparent.
>No measureable defect existed yet. So yes, one can complain that
>'what will become defective' capacitors were not detected by the
>meter. But the discussion here is how to find currently defective
>power supplies; also before a defect becomes worse and crashes a
>computer. Locating a defect in but minutes or seconds. Solving

If the caps in the supply have gone that far, then yes. (They don't all
bulge; caps can lose capacity and show no outward sign.)

>computer problems maybe 5 times faster than what can be achieved by
>shotgunning.

That term again (-:
>
> Clearly, the meter is a superior solution compared to the so popular
>method called shotgunning - for multiple reasons already provided.

And again
>
> 2.5 digits (analog meter) is insufficient. 3.5 digits (a standard
>multimeter) is necessary because of what is being measured.

I very much doubt you'd be able to read an analogue meter to 2.5 digits!
Except near full-scale, and probably with a large mirror scale. I'd say
2.5 digits - as long as the first isn't 0, i. e. as long as the meter
has enough ranges - is enough for this purpose; the noise on a PC's
power rails means anything finer is pointless anyway. However, it is
academic - as you say, meters you can get are probably mostly 3 digits
anyway nowadays.
>
> Shotgunning - replacing parts on spec? I don't now what that

Now you see how I feel ... (-:

>means. If a power supply is out of spec (relevant parameters), then a
>multimeter should discover it. Shotgunning is replacing a power
>supply regardless of whether the original supply is or is not 'in

Ah, at last; I _thought_ that was what you meant, but nice to have it
confirmed.

>spec'. Shotgunning is fixing something only on wild speculation.
>Computer does not start. Wild speculations – automatically blame and
>replace the power supply – is shotgunning.
[]
I see - I suppose it is by analogy of shooting with a shotgun, on the
basis that one pellet might hit.

(The expression I used above - "on spec" - is a [perhaps British?]
expression meaning much the same; I'm not sure where it comes from -
possibly "speculation", certainly not "specification".)

Now, connectors. I wasn't going to join in this argument, but I can't
resist! My main job function at the moment involves supporting old
equipment (mostly avionics, not PCs), often decades old.

AMP, by the way, are now part of Tyco electronics (not to be confused
with Tyco).

Connectors _are_ self-cleaning _to some extent_: the wiping action of
them being inserted and removed will often clean off some of whatever is
preventing them from making good contact. Once made and static, this of
course does not apply. _Usually_, _if_ the mating surfaces were springy
and clean enough in the first place, they should remain making good
contact. However, springiness does reduce in time, and of course there
_is_ vibration in PCs.

Removing and reseating _will_ often scrape through the contamination and
restore a good contact. Whether this has solved the problem or just "got
it working" is a matter for argument; it _hasn't_ fixed the source of
corrosion if there is one (a smoker in the room?), it _hasn't_ restored
and spring pressure that is missing. Conversely, it _may_ make the unit
continue to work for the remaining life of the equipment - it depends
how sure the customer wants to be, and how much they are willing to pay.
I would make sure they are told that that was what was done, in the case
of a PC. (For avionics, quite apart from the safety considerations
anyway, I'd want to check on the springiness, because they are subject
to a lot more vibration. But if that means replacement of the connector,
that means quite a bit of downtime - assuming a new connector of the
same type can still be obtained at all.)

Removing and reseating _will_ also wear the contacts - as will cleaning
them (whether with wire wool or an eraser; a solvent is better).
However, the benefit may outweigh the disadvantage; if the contamination
can clearly be seen and removed, this probably _is_ a solution.

Connectors are _designed_ to be re-made several times. For DIN41612 and
D-type connectors, it basically depends on the thickness of the gold
plating: for the highest grade (either III or I, I can't remember which
way it goes), they have about 5 microns of gold, which is good for
several hundred mating cycles. The lowest grade are just gold "flashed",
and generally those are considered to have no more than about 5 cycles
in them. For things not intended to be plugged in and out many times,
grade II or the lowest is probably adequate, and certainly cheaper (by
quite a bit). Things like peripheral cards for PCs probably have such a
coating, I don't know; one would hope that the _socket_ connections have
a thicker coating, likewise the drive connectors and any other part that
is likely to be disturbed several times in its lifetime. I have also
seen cards (especially memory modules) that have "bright tin" finish
rather than gold; again, this is valid for some uses.

Basically, what I'm saying is: let's be sensible about this, and not get
on our high horses and say "anybody who does xxx should be
shot/sacked/whatever". All techniques - plugging/unplugging, cleaning
(though not I would say with wire brush!), and even the dreaded
replacing-on-spec ("shotgunning"?) have their place. There are times
when "get it working no matter what you do - but quickly" applies; there
are times when "get it working but spend as little as possible" applies;
and there are times - few, I suspect - when "_fix_ it, and tell me what
was wrong so I can reduce the chance of it happening again" applies.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

"Forget computers; it's hard enough getting humans to pass the Turing test."
- David Bedno

[MEB[_2_]]

Where did you find agreement with your claim in what was presented by me...

EVERY critical server area is environmentally controlled, due, in part, to
the massive and diverse types of pollutants now found in common air;
that's.the air across the planet, from pole to pole. Highly corrosive and
destructive; prior theoretical ideas or even proven mechanical
characteristics once thought as viable for protective qualities or lacking
need for such, are now found as needing protection.
From centuries old marble statues and paintings, to old rock and man-made
structures; all are being destroyed by the air borne pollutants. They need
no more than minimal exposure to *common air*.
That an engineer, such as you claim to be, would suggest that connectors
can be counted on to be *self cleaning* is absurd, moreover, shows how
out-of-touch with the real world many engineers are. Texts and teachings
which ignore these developments are at the very least wrong, and when
dealing with actual designed goods and/or structures and/or something as
simple as an electrical connector, are likely dangerous and hazardous, and,
when taken with human activities, life threatening. This would be CRITICAL,
certainly such in the airline industry, and definitely in the military.
But one can NOT stop there. Buildings, bridges and other structures which
man uses are ALL subject to these pollutants' destructive properties found
in the common air which we all breath and surrounds EVERYTHING [unless in a
vacuum].

When I suggested using an erasure, it wasn't the scrub the area with
repeated and destructive penetrating action, but a light application,
because one also finds air borne pollutants which contain dielectric
properties or cause such via chemical reaction. Standard thermal expansion
and contraction of connections can, over the course of time, allow this
film-like activity to break once viable connections.

So take some time and look OUTSIDE that box in which you have placed
yourself. There are two *worlds*, one in which we live, and the second -
theoretical or *the dreams of man*. Living in the real world and attempting
to understand it is difficult, but certainly provides more protection.
Living in a dream world may be more comfortable, but certainly provides
opportunity for abuse, dangerous situations, and false sense of security.

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org
a Peoples' counsel

Windows diagnostics/Security/Networking:
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
_ _
~~
> wrote in message
...
On Dec 21, 3:11 am, "MEB" <meb@not > wrote:
> Answer the question placed, don't walk to another just because you presume
> to have found support... why do you believe environmentally controlled
areas
> are required for server farms and the like?

So you cannot dispute that electronic design includes normal
corrosion in the design parameters. Normal contact corrosion must
never cause electronics failures. AND that connectors are also self
cleaning - making corrosion further irrelevant. OK. Now we have an
agreement.

Do you walk into a server farm in white lab coats, hair nets, or
masks? That was required in environmentally controlled areas such as
aerospace equipment that also must work just fine in far harsher
environments. So what? What is your point other than to ignore what
every responsible connector manufacturer provides in spec sheets and
application notes? A tech caught cleaning contacts with an eraser to
fix electronics will quickly find himself in retraining or
reassigned.

Cleaning contacts with an eraser provides the OP with no useful
solution to his problem. But it does promote another classic urban
myth.

[MEB[_2_]]

Where did you find agreement with your claim in what was presented by me...

EVERY critical server area is environmentally controlled, due, in part, to
the massive and diverse types of pollutants now found in common air;
that's.the air across the planet, from pole to pole. Highly corrosive and
destructive; prior theoretical ideas or even proven mechanical
characteristics once thought as viable for protective qualities or lacking
need for such, are now found as needing protection.
From centuries old marble statues and paintings, to old rock and man-made
structures; all are being destroyed by the air borne pollutants. They need
no more than minimal exposure to *common air*.
That an engineer, such as you claim to be, would suggest that connectors
can be counted on to be *self cleaning* is absurd, moreover, shows how
out-of-touch with the real world many engineers are. Texts and teachings
which ignore these developments are at the very least wrong, and when
dealing with actual designed goods and/or structures and/or something as
simple as an electrical connector, are likely dangerous and hazardous, and,
when taken with human activities, life threatening. This would be CRITICAL,
certainly such in the airline industry, and definitely in the military.
But one can NOT stop there. Buildings, bridges and other structures which
man uses are ALL subject to these pollutants' destructive properties found
in the common air which we all breath and surrounds EVERYTHING [unless in a
vacuum].

When I suggested using an erasure, it wasn't the scrub the area with
repeated and destructive penetrating action, but a light application,
because one also finds air borne pollutants which contain dielectric
properties or cause such via chemical reaction. Standard thermal expansion
and contraction of connections can, over the course of time, allow this
film-like activity to break once viable connections.

So take some time and look OUTSIDE that box in which you have placed
yourself. There are two *worlds*, one in which we live, and the second -
theoretical or *the dreams of man*. Living in the real world and attempting
to understand it is difficult, but certainly provides more protection.
Living in a dream world may be more comfortable, but certainly provides
opportunity for abuse, dangerous situations, and false sense of security.

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org
a Peoples' counsel

Windows diagnostics/Security/Networking:
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
_ _
~~
> wrote in message
...
On Dec 21, 3:11 am, "MEB" <meb@not > wrote:
> Answer the question placed, don't walk to another just because you presume
> to have found support... why do you believe environmentally controlled
areas
> are required for server farms and the like?

So you cannot dispute that electronic design includes normal
corrosion in the design parameters. Normal contact corrosion must
never cause electronics failures. AND that connectors are also self
cleaning - making corrosion further irrelevant. OK. Now we have an
agreement.

Do you walk into a server farm in white lab coats, hair nets, or
masks? That was required in environmentally controlled areas such as
aerospace equipment that also must work just fine in far harsher
environments. So what? What is your point other than to ignore what
every responsible connector manufacturer provides in spec sheets and
application notes? A tech caught cleaning contacts with an eraser to
fix electronics will quickly find himself in retraining or
reassigned.

Cleaning contacts with an eraser provides the OP with no useful
solution to his problem. But it does promote another classic urban
myth.

[[email protected]]

On Dec 21, 12:44 pm, "MEB" <meb@not > wrote:
> EVERY critical server area is environmentally controlled, due, in part, to
> the massive and diverse types of pollutants now found in common air;
> that's.the air across the planet, from pole to pole.

Yes people are dropping in the street killed by this corrosive and
polluted air. Meanwhile, that same air is routinely taken into
account by responsible connector manufacturers. Even GM finally
conceded to better connectors after suffering routine computer
failures.

Using those manufacturer numbers, electronics is routinely designed
to make that corrosion - and much more - completely irrelevant. One
who designs and any tech that learned from manufacturer datasheets
would know this. Those who are trained in myth will clean contacts
with an eraser to fix electronics. Those trained in myths never
learned that all connectors are self cleaning when reseated.

MEB only posts popular myths. No facts, no numbers, no example ...
just some mythical belief that all electronics everywhere operate in
rooms that remove hydrocarbons, sulfur, and other pollutants so that
electronics do not fail. Meanwhile, cars that have no such protection
are routinely found abandoned on every road. MEB tells us this is
so ... without numbers, facts .... Junk science is alive and well
among computer assemblers who never learned basic electronic
principles, who misrepresent themselves as trained, and who use
erasers to clean contacts.

MEB posts nothing helpful for the OP and his problem. Suspects
could have been identified in but a minute using a 3.5 digit
multimeter, some basic electrical knowledge, and replies from those
who this stuff. How does the OP use an eraser on power supply
connectors? Oh. MEB posts about the completely irrelevant. While
posting without any numbers, manufacturer knowledge, or … well, this
dirty air that is killing all humans and that is magically filtered
where ever electronics exist … finally explains why all automobiles
now fail in months. Finally MEB explains the world. Junk science is
alive and well.

[[email protected]]

On Dec 21, 12:44 pm, "MEB" <meb@not > wrote:
> EVERY critical server area is environmentally controlled, due, in part, to
> the massive and diverse types of pollutants now found in common air;
> that's.the air across the planet, from pole to pole.

Yes people are dropping in the street killed by this corrosive and
polluted air. Meanwhile, that same air is routinely taken into
account by responsible connector manufacturers. Even GM finally
conceded to better connectors after suffering routine computer
failures.

Using those manufacturer numbers, electronics is routinely designed
to make that corrosion - and much more - completely irrelevant. One
who designs and any tech that learned from manufacturer datasheets
would know this. Those who are trained in myth will clean contacts
with an eraser to fix electronics. Those trained in myths never
learned that all connectors are self cleaning when reseated.

MEB only posts popular myths. No facts, no numbers, no example ...
just some mythical belief that all electronics everywhere operate in
rooms that remove hydrocarbons, sulfur, and other pollutants so that
electronics do not fail. Meanwhile, cars that have no such protection
are routinely found abandoned on every road. MEB tells us this is
so ... without numbers, facts .... Junk science is alive and well
among computer assemblers who never learned basic electronic
principles, who misrepresent themselves as trained, and who use
erasers to clean contacts.

MEB posts nothing helpful for the OP and his problem. Suspects
could have been identified in but a minute using a 3.5 digit
multimeter, some basic electrical knowledge, and replies from those
who this stuff. How does the OP use an eraser on power supply
connectors? Oh. MEB posts about the completely irrelevant. While
posting without any numbers, manufacturer knowledge, or … well, this
dirty air that is killing all humans and that is magically filtered
where ever electronics exist … finally explains why all automobiles
now fail in months. Finally MEB explains the world. Junk science is
alive and well.

[Buffalo]

wrote:
[snip]
>
> MEB posts nothing helpful for the OP and his problem. Suspects
> could have been identified in but a minute using a 3.5 digit
> multimeter, some basic electrical knowledge, and replies from those
> who this stuff. How does the OP use an eraser on power supply
> connectors? Oh. MEB posts about the completely irrelevant. While
> posting without any numbers, manufacturer knowledge, or … well, this
> dirty air that is killing all humans and that is magically filtered
> where ever electronics exist … finally explains why all automobiles
> now fail in months. Finally MEB explains the world. Junk science is
> alive and well.


So is most of the advice you give which is mainly 'take it to a tech' and
spend money.
You sound like a 'brand-new' tech just out of class, but you claim to have
been doing it for many years.
You helped the OP zilch with your theories and pompousness.

PS: I had to use emery paper on the blade contact on my temperature sensor
on my Mitsubishi and than I used WD-40 to help protect that connection. It
worked and I didn't have to spend hundreds of dollars to take it to the
dealer.

[Buffalo]

wrote:
[snip]
>
> MEB posts nothing helpful for the OP and his problem. Suspects
> could have been identified in but a minute using a 3.5 digit
> multimeter, some basic electrical knowledge, and replies from those
> who this stuff. How does the OP use an eraser on power supply
> connectors? Oh. MEB posts about the completely irrelevant. While
> posting without any numbers, manufacturer knowledge, or … well, this
> dirty air that is killing all humans and that is magically filtered
> where ever electronics exist … finally explains why all automobiles
> now fail in months. Finally MEB explains the world. Junk science is
> alive and well.


So is most of the advice you give which is mainly 'take it to a tech' and
spend money.
You sound like a 'brand-new' tech just out of class, but you claim to have
been doing it for many years.
You helped the OP zilch with your theories and pompousness.

PS: I had to use emery paper on the blade contact on my temperature sensor
on my Mitsubishi and than I used WD-40 to help protect that connection. It
worked and I didn't have to spend hundreds of dollars to take it to the
dealer.

[John Doe]

wrote:

> Yes, as stated previously, some problems such as a missing AC
> noise filters will not be detected. But those are outside the
> context of this discussion. Multimeter also will not detect a
> stolen presidential election. That too is outside the context.
> A multimeter will always locate a supply defect that causes the
> system to not boot or work reliably. The meter either says the
> supply is perfectly good - move on to other suspect. Or the meter
> says this power supply is defective - must be replaced. Both are
> definitive answers.

That is an example of Tom's usual utter nonsense. For what it's
worth, before you believe anything that "westom1" says, do an author
history search for "w_tom" (his most recent prior alias). Tom
preaches that surge protectors are useless. Tom also frequently
advises ordinary people to open up their computer while it's running
and probe around with metal multimeter leads. Nobody knows why, but
Tom searches the USENET archive for terms like "surge protector" and
"power supply" so he can jump into the group/thread to spread
hazardous advice.



--
Land Skis (rough terrain skates). The first rollerblades with a big
front wheel and small trailing wheels, to help roll over obstacles
while maintaining a low stance.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/27532210@N04/3056505603

[John Doe]

wrote:

> Yes, as stated previously, some problems such as a missing AC
> noise filters will not be detected. But those are outside the
> context of this discussion. Multimeter also will not detect a
> stolen presidential election. That too is outside the context.
> A multimeter will always locate a supply defect that causes the
> system to not boot or work reliably. The meter either says the
> supply is perfectly good - move on to other suspect. Or the meter
> says this power supply is defective - must be replaced. Both are
> definitive answers.

That is an example of Tom's usual utter nonsense. For what it's
worth, before you believe anything that "westom1" says, do an author
history search for "w_tom" (his most recent prior alias). Tom
preaches that surge protectors are useless. Tom also frequently
advises ordinary people to open up their computer while it's running
and probe around with metal multimeter leads. Nobody knows why, but
Tom searches the USENET archive for terms like "surge protector" and
"power supply" so he can jump into the group/thread to spread
hazardous advice.



--
Land Skis (rough terrain skates). The first rollerblades with a big
front wheel and small trailing wheels, to help roll over obstacles
while maintaining a low stance.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/27532210@N04/3056505603

[MEB[_2_]]

Those who believe tech sheets as absolute FACT really should see a
psychiatrist, and that generally includes MOST engineers.

These are the same group of individuals that have relied upon manufacturing
spec sheets that caused:

numerous roof collapses due to manufacturing defects AND failure by the original engineer to properly consider span
stress and roof loads...; BILLIONS in Insurance settlements and rebuilding

bridge collapses due to failure to understand and consider environmental
impacts of salt, load stress, and environmental pollutants; AND wind and
traffic harmonic effects, among others....;

nuclear disasters causing vast environmental damage, human defects and
other; TRILLIONS in environmental cleanup and medical care;

building collapses due to reliance upon manufacturing spec sheets and poor
design; BILLIONS

aircraft crashes due to reliance upon manufacturing spec sheets and poor
designs, electrical failures, computer failures, and on and on; TRILLIONS in
Insurance settlements;

automotive disasters, such as fuel tank explosions, brake failures, steering
linkage failures, and on and on.... BILLIONS in recalls and Insurance
settlements;

and the list goes on..... all because engineers FAIL to understand the real
world, where manufacturer's CLAIMS are BARELY worth the paper they're
printed upon... and where engineers point to those same specs to cover their
own failures....
Mind you, engineers have their place, but it certainly isn't to replace
logic, fact, and sensibility.

So take your JUNK science to a forum where it MIGHT be
acceptable,,, here we live [or at least some of us do] in the REAL WORLD. We
have a brain, and a few of us actually LOOK at this world in which we live
and attempt to understand it.

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org
a Peoples' counsel

Windows diagnostics/Security/Networking:
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
_ _
~~
> wrote in message
...
On Dec 21, 12:44 pm, "MEB" <meb@not > wrote:[i]
> EVERY critical server area is environmentally controlled, due, in part,
to
> the massive and diverse types of pollutants now found in common air;
> that's.the air across the planet, from pole to pole.

Yes people are dropping in the street killed by this corrosive and
polluted air. Meanwhile, that same air is routinely taken into
account by responsible connector manufacturers. Even GM finally
conceded to better connectors after suffering routine computer
failures.

Using those manufacturer numbers, electronics is routinely designed
to make that corrosion - and much more - completely irrelevant. One
who designs and any tech that learned from manufacturer datasheets
would know this. Those who are trained in myth will clean contacts
with an eraser to fix electronics. Those trained in myths never
learned that all connectors are self cleaning when reseated.

MEB only posts popular myths. No facts, no numbers, no example ...
just some mythical belief that all electronics everywhere operate in
rooms that remove hydrocarbons, sulfur, and other pollutants so that
electronics do not fail. Meanwhile, cars that have no such protection
are routinely found abandoned on every road. MEB tells us this is
so ... without numbers, facts .... Junk science is alive and well
among computer assemblers who never learned basic electronic
principles, who misrepresent themselves as trained, and who use
erasers to clean contacts.

MEB posts nothing helpful for the OP and his problem. Suspects
could have been identified in but a minute using a 3.5 digit
multimeter, some basic electrical knowledge, and replies from those
who this stuff. How does the OP use an eraser on power supply
connectors? Oh. MEB posts about the completely irrelevant. While
posting without any numbers, manufacturer knowledge, or … well, this
dirty air that is killing all humans and that is magically filtered
where ever electronics exist … finally explains why all automobiles
now fail in months. Finally MEB explains the world. Junk science is
alive and well.

[MEB[_2_]]

Those who believe tech sheets as absolute FACT really should see a
psychiatrist, and that generally includes MOST engineers.

These are the same group of individuals that have relied upon manufacturing
spec sheets that caused:

numerous roof collapses due to manufacturing defects AND failure by the original engineer to properly consider span
stress and roof loads...; BILLIONS in Insurance settlements and rebuilding

bridge collapses due to failure to understand and consider environmental
impacts of salt, load stress, and environmental pollutants; AND wind and
traffic harmonic effects, among others....;

nuclear disasters causing vast environmental damage, human defects and
other; TRILLIONS in environmental cleanup and medical care;

building collapses due to reliance upon manufacturing spec sheets and poor
design; BILLIONS

aircraft crashes due to reliance upon manufacturing spec sheets and poor
designs, electrical failures, computer failures, and on and on; TRILLIONS in
Insurance settlements;

automotive disasters, such as fuel tank explosions, brake failures, steering
linkage failures, and on and on.... BILLIONS in recalls and Insurance
settlements;

and the list goes on..... all because engineers FAIL to understand the real
world, where manufacturer's CLAIMS are BARELY worth the paper they're
printed upon... and where engineers point to those same specs to cover their
own failures....
Mind you, engineers have their place, but it certainly isn't to replace
logic, fact, and sensibility.

So take your JUNK science to a forum where it MIGHT be
acceptable,,, here we live [or at least some of us do] in the REAL WORLD. We
have a brain, and a few of us actually LOOK at this world in which we live
and attempt to understand it.

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org
a Peoples' counsel

Windows diagnostics/Security/Networking:
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
_ _
~~
> wrote in message
...
On Dec 21, 12:44 pm, "MEB" <meb@not > wrote:[i]
> EVERY critical server area is environmentally controlled, due, in part,
to
> the massive and diverse types of pollutants now found in common air;
> that's.the air across the planet, from pole to pole.

Yes people are dropping in the street killed by this corrosive and
polluted air. Meanwhile, that same air is routinely taken into
account by responsible connector manufacturers. Even GM finally
conceded to better connectors after suffering routine computer
failures.

Using those manufacturer numbers, electronics is routinely designed
to make that corrosion - and much more - completely irrelevant. One
who designs and any tech that learned from manufacturer datasheets
would know this. Those who are trained in myth will clean contacts
with an eraser to fix electronics. Those trained in myths never
learned that all connectors are self cleaning when reseated.

MEB only posts popular myths. No facts, no numbers, no example ...
just some mythical belief that all electronics everywhere operate in
rooms that remove hydrocarbons, sulfur, and other pollutants so that
electronics do not fail. Meanwhile, cars that have no such protection
are routinely found abandoned on every road. MEB tells us this is
so ... without numbers, facts .... Junk science is alive and well
among computer assemblers who never learned basic electronic
principles, who misrepresent themselves as trained, and who use
erasers to clean contacts.

MEB posts nothing helpful for the OP and his problem. Suspects
could have been identified in but a minute using a 3.5 digit
multimeter, some basic electrical knowledge, and replies from those
who this stuff. How does the OP use an eraser on power supply
connectors? Oh. MEB posts about the completely irrelevant. While
posting without any numbers, manufacturer knowledge, or … well, this
dirty air that is killing all humans and that is magically filtered
where ever electronics exist … finally explains why all automobiles
now fail in months. Finally MEB explains the world. Junk science is
alive and well.

[MEB[_2_]]

Oh forgot to include these:

Let's NOT forget the unknown TRILLIONS lost due to such simple things as
o-ring failures, electrical failures, and other on rockets and other space
equipment... these have caused some substantial disasters and loss of life
as well.

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org
a Peoples' counsel

Windows diagnostics/Security/Networking:
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
_ _
~~

[MEB[_2_]]

Oh forgot to include these:

Let's NOT forget the unknown TRILLIONS lost due to such simple things as
o-ring failures, electrical failures, and other on rockets and other space
equipment... these have caused some substantial disasters and loss of life
as well.

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org
a Peoples' counsel

Windows diagnostics/Security/Networking:
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
_ _
~~

[Buffalo]

MEB wrote:
> Those who believe tech sheets as absolute FACT really should see a
> psychiatrist, and that generally includes MOST engineers.
>
> These are the same group of individuals that have relied upon
> manufacturing spec sheets that caused:
>
> numerous roof collapses due to manufacturing defects [including
> engineering failures] AND failure by the original engineer to
> properly consider span stress and roof loads...; BILLIONS in
> Insurance settlements and rebuilding
>
> bridge collapses due to failure to understand and consider
> environmental impacts of salt, load stress, and environmental
> pollutants; AND wind and traffic harmonic effects, among others....;
>
> nuclear disasters causing vast environmental damage, human defects and
> other; TRILLIONS in environmental cleanup and medical care;
>
> building collapses due to reliance upon manufacturing spec sheets and
> poor design; BILLIONS
>
> aircraft crashes due to reliance upon manufacturing spec sheets and
> poor designs, electrical failures, computer failures, and on and on;
> TRILLIONS in Insurance settlements;
>
> automotive disasters, such as fuel tank explosions, brake failures,
> steering linkage failures, and on and on.... BILLIONS in recalls and
> Insurance settlements;
>
> and the list goes on..... all because engineers FAIL to understand
> the real world, where manufacturer's CLAIMS are BARELY worth the
> paper they're printed upon... and where engineers point to those same
> specs to cover their own failures....
> Mind you, engineers have their place, but it certainly isn't to
> replace logic, fact, and sensibility.
>
> So take your JUNK science to a forum where it
> MIGHT be acceptable,,, here we live [or at least some of us do] in
> the REAL WORLD. We have a brain, and a few of us actually LOOK at
> this world in which we live and attempt to understand it.
>
Well put MEB!!! :)
Have an enjoyable Merry Christmas.

[Buffalo]

MEB wrote:
> Those who believe tech sheets as absolute FACT really should see a
> psychiatrist, and that generally includes MOST engineers.
>
> These are the same group of individuals that have relied upon
> manufacturing spec sheets that caused:
>
> numerous roof collapses due to manufacturing defects [including
> engineering failures] AND failure by the original engineer to
> properly consider span stress and roof loads...; BILLIONS in
> Insurance settlements and rebuilding
>
> bridge collapses due to failure to understand and consider
> environmental impacts of salt, load stress, and environmental
> pollutants; AND wind and traffic harmonic effects, among others....;
>
> nuclear disasters causing vast environmental damage, human defects and
> other; TRILLIONS in environmental cleanup and medical care;
>
> building collapses due to reliance upon manufacturing spec sheets and
> poor design; BILLIONS
>
> aircraft crashes due to reliance upon manufacturing spec sheets and
> poor designs, electrical failures, computer failures, and on and on;
> TRILLIONS in Insurance settlements;
>
> automotive disasters, such as fuel tank explosions, brake failures,
> steering linkage failures, and on and on.... BILLIONS in recalls and
> Insurance settlements;
>
> and the list goes on..... all because engineers FAIL to understand
> the real world, where manufacturer's CLAIMS are BARELY worth the
> paper they're printed upon... and where engineers point to those same
> specs to cover their own failures....
> Mind you, engineers have their place, but it certainly isn't to
> replace logic, fact, and sensibility.
>
> So take your JUNK science to a forum where it
> MIGHT be acceptable,,, here we live [or at least some of us do] in
> the REAL WORLD. We have a brain, and a few of us actually LOOK at
> this world in which we live and attempt to understand it.
>
Well put MEB!!! :)
Have an enjoyable Merry Christmas.

[MEB[_2_]]

"Buffalo" > wrote in message
...
|
|
| MEB wrote:
| > Those who believe tech sheets as absolute FACT really should see a
| > psychiatrist, and that generally includes MOST engineers.
| >
| > These are the same group of individuals that have relied upon
| > manufacturing spec sheets that caused:
| >
| > numerous roof collapses due to manufacturing defects [including
| > engineering failures] AND failure by the original engineer to
| > properly consider span stress and roof loads...; BILLIONS in
| > Insurance settlements and rebuilding
| >
| > bridge collapses due to failure to understand and consider
| > environmental impacts of salt, load stress, and environmental
| > pollutants; AND wind and traffic harmonic effects, among others....;
| >
| > nuclear disasters causing vast environmental damage, human defects and
| > other; TRILLIONS in environmental cleanup and medical care;
| >
| > building collapses due to reliance upon manufacturing spec sheets and
| > poor design; BILLIONS
| >
| > aircraft crashes due to reliance upon manufacturing spec sheets and
| > poor designs, electrical failures, computer failures, and on and on;
| > TRILLIONS in Insurance settlements;
| >
| > automotive disasters, such as fuel tank explosions, brake failures,
| > steering linkage failures, and on and on.... BILLIONS in recalls and
| > Insurance settlements;
| >
| > and the list goes on..... all because engineers FAIL to understand
| > the real world, where manufacturer's CLAIMS are BARELY worth the
| > paper they're printed upon... and where engineers point to those same
| > specs to cover their own failures....
| > Mind you, engineers have their place, but it certainly isn't to
| > replace logic, fact, and sensibility.
| >
| > So take your JUNK science to a forum where it
| > MIGHT be acceptable,,, here we live [or at least some of us do] in
| > the REAL WORLD. We have a brain, and a few of us actually LOOK at
| > this world in which we live and attempt to understand it.
| >
| Well put MEB!!! :)
| Have an enjoyable Merry Christmas.
|

Same to you and yours,, as well as the rest of the group.

Happy Holidays, and be careful...

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org
a Peoples' counsel

Windows diagnostics/Security/Networking:
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
_ _
~~

[MEB[_2_]]

"Buffalo" > wrote in message
...
|
|
| MEB wrote:
| > Those who believe tech sheets as absolute FACT really should see a
| > psychiatrist, and that generally includes MOST engineers.
| >
| > These are the same group of individuals that have relied upon
| > manufacturing spec sheets that caused:
| >
| > numerous roof collapses due to manufacturing defects [including
| > engineering failures] AND failure by the original engineer to
| > properly consider span stress and roof loads...; BILLIONS in
| > Insurance settlements and rebuilding
| >
| > bridge collapses due to failure to understand and consider
| > environmental impacts of salt, load stress, and environmental
| > pollutants; AND wind and traffic harmonic effects, among others....;
| >
| > nuclear disasters causing vast environmental damage, human defects and
| > other; TRILLIONS in environmental cleanup and medical care;
| >
| > building collapses due to reliance upon manufacturing spec sheets and
| > poor design; BILLIONS
| >
| > aircraft crashes due to reliance upon manufacturing spec sheets and
| > poor designs, electrical failures, computer failures, and on and on;
| > TRILLIONS in Insurance settlements;
| >
| > automotive disasters, such as fuel tank explosions, brake failures,
| > steering linkage failures, and on and on.... BILLIONS in recalls and
| > Insurance settlements;
| >
| > and the list goes on..... all because engineers FAIL to understand
| > the real world, where manufacturer's CLAIMS are BARELY worth the
| > paper they're printed upon... and where engineers point to those same
| > specs to cover their own failures....
| > Mind you, engineers have their place, but it certainly isn't to
| > replace logic, fact, and sensibility.
| >
| > So take your JUNK science to a forum where it
| > MIGHT be acceptable,,, here we live [or at least some of us do] in
| > the REAL WORLD. We have a brain, and a few of us actually LOOK at
| > this world in which we live and attempt to understand it.
| >
| Well put MEB!!! :)
| Have an enjoyable Merry Christmas.
|

Same to you and yours,, as well as the rest of the group.

Happy Holidays, and be careful...

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org
a Peoples' counsel

Windows diagnostics/Security/Networking:
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
_ _
~~