Use of stepped sine wave UPS with SONY Bracia Flat Panel LCD TV

In alt.engineering.electrical Salmon Egg wrote: | On 12/26/06 2:14 PM, in article 89hkh.7703$6Z5.2753@trndny01, "James Sweet" | wrote: | |> Steve Stone wrote: |>>> PLEASE turn off the HTML crap. |>>> |>> |>> |>> It always amazes me that in this day and age we still have people who prefer |>> 1981 IBM PC text. |>> |>> Next someone will ask for upper case only, 5 level Baudot, because they are |>> reading this group on a Teletype Model 28. |>> |>> |>> |> |> |> Well HTML has its place, and I'm not terribly bothered by it but really |> what in these discussion groups requires anything beyond plain text? |> It's an information forum, not an art gallery. I can very much respect a |> desire for clean efficiency, extra fluff just gets in the way. | | While HTML does not solve all the problems. It does allow for italics, and | bold face for emphasis. It allow chemical formulas that look something like | what shows up in text books. Instead of H2SO4, I can use small fonts for the | digits. Although it is a pain, there would be some formulas useful in this | group that will look better in HTML.

So insert a URL when you need to show something beyond what ASCII can do. That's how I've done it many times in alt.engineering.electrical.

In alt.engineering.electrical Richard Crowley wrote: | wrote ... |> Still, IMHO, a bad design. Active cooling should not be needed |> when there is no active heating. | | Modern projectors (especially "road-warrior", portable type), | servo-controlled lamps, etc. etc. would be non-viable in the | modern market it they were designed large enough to allow | unaided convection cooling. Furthermore the heat is so | concentrated far inside that I question whether one could | design such equipment for natural cooling regardless of size.

But wasn't the OP talking about a home display model?

In alt.engineering.electrical Laurence Payne wrote: | On 26 Dec 2006 11:45:26 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote: | |>So what about their design makes it a problem for cooling to go from active |>to passive when the heating goes from active to none? It would seem to me |>that a slower cooling process would be less stressful. But apparently some |>aspect of it is a problem where temperature presumably will rise somewhere |>that active cooling would have prevented (e.g. cool parts adjacent to hot |>parts). Someone didn't consider thermal in the mechanical design. | | Or the punters demanded it small and cheap. Lots of equipment | requires a shut-down cycle. You're used to it with your computer, | your ink-jet printer. If they reckon the projector bulb will last | longer with controlled cooling, why should we take an attitude?

My computer has survived dozens of sudden power outages with no problem whatsoever. The printer seems to still be working fine, too (but I'm not stressing it with a dozen reams a day).

Yeah, and mostly it will. But one day you'll lose data, or corrupt a disk's file structure.

Are you sure you're not arguing your point a LITTLE harder than it deserves? :-)

In alt.engineering.electrical Laurence Payne wrote: | On 27 Dec 2006 02:40:50 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote: | |>| Or the punters demanded it small and cheap. Lots of equipment |>| requires a shut-down cycle. You're used to it with your computer, |>| your ink-jet printer. If they reckon the projector bulb will last |>| longer with controlled cooling, why should we take an attitude? |>

|>My computer has survived dozens of sudden power outages with no problem |>whatsoever. The printer seems to still be working fine, too (but I'm not |>stressing it with a dozen reams a day). | | Yeah, and mostly it will. But one day you'll lose data, or corrupt a | disk's file structure.

Reiserfs is designed specifically to avoid that. Most partitions are in that format. The ext2 partitions are mounted read/only.

| Are you sure you're not arguing your point a LITTLE harder than it | deserves? :-)

I'm sure. Things _can_ be hardened again power outages.

Not with NTFS.

I'm likely an older fart than you. But being a whippersnapper doesn't qualify you (or anyone else) to breeze through here pissing on all the conventions.

Its the holidays. How about being polite to others.

How do you think they get that bright, large-area back-light without what you call "active heating"? Even fluorescent sources (and their ballasts, etc.) get pretty warm.

And the Titanic wouldn't sink.

The Titanic might not have sunk if built to the standards of NTFS. ;-)

Oh yes it can. And, occasionally, does.

It would have sank before they could hit it with the bottle. I have seen a lot of NTFS crashes, both with mechanical, and solid state disk drives. The drive is writing a file as the power supply drops below the critical level, and it is trashed. I've lost track of the hundreds of times I've reinstalled OS with NTFS after a crash. Sometimes it was the OS that was damaged, other times it was the system's software, but we were required to reformat the drive, run full diagnostics, then reinstall everything.

The mind boggles. How do you crash the hardware so often?

Bob

Not me, but it looks like the drive was writing a file as the power failed. A lot of corrupted files on the drives, and none of the systems were connected to the outside world.

Well, Bob, your mind isn't the only one that boggles. My mind boggles too. Somehow, I can't seem to comprehend how someone like you, a self-proclaimed scientist and engineer, needs to go to sci.physics for help in solving a junior college level partial differential equation. Worst yet, you were lead by the hand by Zigoteau over several posts, and finally told that you clearly don't know what you are doing.

That idiotic quote, which you have fabricated and attribute to Einstein, has about as much depth as piss on a flat rock, as does virtually everything that you have to say.

Good question. NTFS has specific safeguards against this sort of thimg happening.

I pull the plug (literally) on booted XP systems all the time. They reboot fine.

Perhaps the write cache is enabled? If it loses power before flushing the cache, data can be corrupted. NTFS is certainly much more robust than the earlier MS file systems though, I haven't had much trouble with it myself.

You do this on purpose? Or are you VERY careless?

Which one?

IME NTFS is generally robust regardless of write caching.

The nature of life is such that one usually pulls the plug on an idle system.

IME there is no serious comparison between NTFS and FAT32. NTFS is *that* much more robust.