Maker Pro
Maker Pro

Sony TV cabinet ---> Bookselves.

N

NSM

Jan 1, 1970
0
| More mindless pig ignorance. The screen
| has very thick glass for a reason, stupid.
|
| Basically because if the risk was anything like you pig ignorantly
claimed,
| plenty would end up injured with stuff falling against the tube in normal
use.
|
| They dont, its just another silly pig ignorant urban myth.

Sadly it is you who is " pig ignorant ". Over the years various methods of
protection have been tried. Bonded face plates was just one. Other sets used
a separate flat glass in front, or a tensioning band to prestress the face.
All three are capable of implosion if removed from the cabinet and then
impacted. I suggest you return to your hole/rock/whatever.
 
B

Bob Ward

Jan 1, 1970
0
The glass from an imploded picture tube, can penetrate a wood cabinet. You
can imagine what it could do to eyes, and body. Effectively, it is an
explosion, with shards of glass as shrapnel.
Can you explain how that would work, from a physics point of view? an
IMPLOSION implies that the shrapnel would be drawn INTO the area, not
projected OUTWARDS.

Implosion:
The rapid inward collapsing of the walls of a vacuum system or device
as the result of failure of the walls to sustain the ambient pressure.
www.roland.lerc.nasa.gov/~dglover/dictionary/i.html

a sudden inward collapse; "the implosion of a light bulb"
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn


Explosion:
a violent release of energy caused by a chemical or nuclear reaction
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn


the act of exploding or bursting something; "the explosion of the
firecrackers awoke the children"; "the burst of an atom bomb creates
enormous radiation aloft"
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn

A rupture of a pressure vessel of some kind due to excessive internal
pressure (usually accompanied by a loud noise).
www.federated.ca/gloss/e.htm

A very rapid reaction accompanied by a large expansion of gases.
www.nsb.northants.sch.uk/Web%20Pages/science/Physics%20Dictionary.htm


A chemical reaction of any chemical compound or mechanical mixture
that, when initiated, undergoes a very rapid combustion or
decomposition, releasing large volumes of highly heated gases that
exert pressure on the surrounding medium. Also, a mechanical reaction
in which failure of the container causes sudden release of pressure
from within a pressure vessel. Depending on the rate of energy
release, an explosion can be categorized as a deflagration, a
detonation, or pressure rupture.
https://www.denix.osd.mil/denix/Public/Library/Explosives/UXOSafety/glossary.html

(Explosion) Sudden and violent tearing asunder caused by gas or
compressed air. This peril is usually insured under policies covering
fire.
www.aon.ca/english/plines_include/glossarye.htm

the sudden and rapid production of gas, heat and noise, and many times
a shock wave, within a confined space.
www.wombat.cusd.chico.k12.ca.us/corpyard/M_O/custodialhandbook/msdsglossary.html
 
B

Bob Ward

Jan 1, 1970
0
Nope, I was obviously commenting on the other Bob's suggestion.


Pity I was commenting on the use of the original TUBE for that.
Pity you couldn't follow the discussion.
 
J

James Sweet

Jan 1, 1970
0
Not really worth the trouble, it wont kill you even if it doesnt discharge.

Won't kill you but it might well scare the crap out of you and cause the TV
to be dropped on your foot. I always discharge a tube before handling it,
I've been zapped a few times by being careless, wasn't hurt but it wasn't
pleasant in the least. I have sliced my hand open pretty good a couple times
jerking back from a minor shock.
 
R

Rod Speed

Jan 1, 1970
0
Pity you couldn't follow the discussion.

Even you should be able to bullshit your way out
of your predicament better than that pathetic effort.
 
J

James Sweet

Jan 1, 1970
0
Rod Speed said:
More mindless pig ignorance. The screen
has very thick glass for a reason, stupid.

Basically because if the risk was anything like you pig ignorantly claimed,
plenty would end up injured with stuff falling against the tube in normal use.

They dont, its just another silly pig ignorant urban myth.

When the tube is installed in the set, there's a very slim chance of
implosion, once removed though all bets are off. The bell of the tube is
fragile and has no internal protection. Believe me, I know, I've had a tube
implode not 3 feet from my head and it's something I'll never forget. I've
imploded a couple other dead tubes from a distance by tossing small rocks at
the bell, it really doesn't take much. Now instead of calling people stupid
how about you just relax? The chances may be slim, but if you tell someone
to be careless and they manage to hurt themselves they can come sue you. Not
a risk I'm personally willing to take.
 
J

James Sweet

Jan 1, 1970
0
Can you explain how that would work, from a physics point of view? an
IMPLOSION implies that the shrapnel would be drawn INTO the area, not
projected OUTWARDS.

Implosion:
The rapid inward collapsing of the walls of a vacuum system or device
as the result of failure of the walls to sustain the ambient pressure.
www.roland.lerc.nasa.gov/~dglover/dictionary/i.html


Yes, easily. Just where do you suppose all the glass goes when it's flying
inwards? Does it all collide in a little ball in the middle and fall to the
ground? Of course not, the shards fly past each other and continue in every
direction until they hit something (wall, your face, air friction, etc) that
absorbs their energy. The violence of a CRT implosion is something that
simply can't be appreciated without seeing it, with over 14 pounds pressing
in on every square inch of the tube (and there's more square inches than it
looks like) that's a LOT of potential energy.
 
N

NSM

Jan 1, 1970
0
| Can you explain how that would work, from a physics point of view? an
| IMPLOSION implies that the shrapnel would be drawn INTO the area, not
| projected OUTWARDS.

.... [tedious references from websites clipped] ...

Yes, we all know what an implosion is. What do you think happens to all the
shrapnel? That it forms a little ball and hovers in space? That it cancels
itself out?

See
http://global.mitsubishielectric.com/heritage/contents/1980s/desc/1985_01_01.html

"... In the early 1980's, the mainstream technology for televisions with
screens 30 inches or larger was the use of rear projection systems both in
the Japanese and North American markets. The reason was simply because it
was impossible from a practical application standpoint to employ the use of
CRT technology in the manufacture of TVs that size. The production of a
larger CRT monitor becomes exponentially difficult in terms of weight and
strength. A vacuum state exists inside of a CRT, and the high atmospheric
pressure required for larger CRTs also multiplies the dangers of implosion.
The most popular and safest size for large CRT-based TVs was 28 inches. In
contemplating the production of a 37-inch model, the development team
determined that the general strength would have to be four- to fivefold that
of the 28-inch TV; an extremely high engineering hurdle to clear. ..."

BTW, "... and the high atmospheric pressure required for larger CRTs ..." is
an error. The static pressure is the same, but the total pressure summed
over the tube increases. The likelihood of breakage increases also due to
mechanical and weight problems.

See also http://www.bvws.org.uk/405alive/tech/safety.html

Search for (dangers implosion tv tube) for more.
 
R

Rod Speed

Jan 1, 1970
0
Won't kill you but it might well scare the crap out of
you and cause the TV to be dropped on your foot.

You're very unlikely indeed to be holding it where
its likely to drop on your foot if it does bite you.
I always discharge a tube before handling it,

Sure, some are excessively cautious like that.

I personally take more risks, including building my house
in the summer just wearing shorts and what we call thongs,
most of the time, even when welding overhead on the steel
structure of the house. Sure, it was a bit of a nuisance when
one bit of slag ended up between my toes with me standing
on a ladder welding, but just a nuisance.

On another occasion I ended up with significant
sunburn on my legs because I was welding quite
a bit of stuff on the ground with me sitting with my
legs on either side of the work too. Just a nuisance.
I've been zapped a few times by being careless, wasn't hurt
but it wasn't pleasant in the least. I have sliced my hand open
pretty good a couple times jerking back from a minor shock.

Cant say I ever have, and I dont normally bother to discharge
the tube unless I actually have a faulty HT lead etc.
 
N

NSM

Jan 1, 1970
0
| Sure, some are excessively cautious like that.
|
| I personally take more risks, including building my house
| in the summer just wearing shorts and what we call thongs,
| most of the time, even when welding overhead on the steel
| structure of the house. Sure, it was a bit of a nuisance when
| one bit of slag ended up between my toes with me standing
| on a ladder welding, but just a nuisance.
|
| On another occasion I ended up with significant
| sunburn on my legs because I was welding quite
| a bit of stuff on the ground with me sitting with my
| legs on either side of the work too. Just a nuisance.

Do you work with explosives?

"There are old dynamiters and there are bold dynamiters, but there are no
old, bold dynamiters".

N
 
R

Rod Speed

Jan 1, 1970
0
Do you work with explosives?

Yep, and light plane flying too. I only take risks when
the worst result is a nuisance, not when its fatal etc.

I choose not to ride motorbikes, because the consequences
of someone else's stupidity can be fatal. With a car you have
rather more protection if someone does something stupid.
"There are old dynamiters and there are bold
dynamiters, but there are no old, bold dynamiters".

There are however plenty who only take risks when
the worst consequence is no more than a nuisance.
 
R

Rod Speed

Jan 1, 1970
0
Rod Speed said:
Yep, and light plane flying too. I only take risks when
the worst result is a nuisance, not when its fatal etc.

I choose not to ride motorbikes, because the consequences
of someone else's stupidity can be fatal. With a car you have
rather more protection if someone does something stupid.

I also work on mains wiring when its powered too when
that makes sense. And ours is a 240/415 system.

Much of the routine maintenance on overhead powerlines
is done with the lines active too, even up to 330KV.
 
R

Rod Speed

Jan 1, 1970
0
Pretty obvious really, its not as bad as the myth claims.

Just another urban myth. Never happened.

Nope, its an implosion.
When the tube is installed in the set,
there's a very slim chance of implosion,

Zero in fact. Like I said, they're designed with very thick
glass for a reason, so some stupid kid wont end up dead
when it manages to slam something into the screen etc.
once removed though all bets are off.

Nope, its nothing like the risk that is mindlessly hyperventilated about.
The bell of the tube is fragile
Wrong.

and has no internal protection.
Waffle.

Believe me,

No thanks.

No you dont.
I've had a tube implode not 3 feet from my head

Plenty have deliberately broken them.
and it's something I'll never forget.

Your neurotic fears are your problem.
I've imploded a couple other dead tubes from a distance
by tossing small rocks at the bell, it really doesn't take much.

Irrelevant to what is likely to happen when removing
the tube to use the cabinet for something else.

And I already said that it makes sense to let the
vaccuum out by snapping off the glass tit thats under
the socket on the extreme end of the neck tube.
Now instead of calling people stupid how about you just relax?

Perfectly relaxed thanks. I call spades spades and stupids stupids.

You get to like that or lump it.
The chances may be slim, but if you tell someone to be careless
and they manage to hurt themselves they can come sue you.

Wrong again.
Not a risk I'm personally willing to take.

Your silly neurotic fears are your problem.
Always have been, always will be.

I choose to provide sensible information and if
some fool comes unstuck, thats that fool's problem.

You get to like that or lump that too.
 
In sci.electronics.repair Rod Speed said:
Basically because if the risk was anything like you pig ignorantly claimed,
plenty would end up injured with stuff falling against the tube in normal use.

The front is by far the strongest part. Also, modern tubes have some
implosion protection, they will implode however when struck in the right
way, just a bit less impressive compared to the older ones.
 
R

Rod Speed

Jan 1, 1970
0
Yes, easily. Just where do you suppose all the glass goes when it's
flying inwards? Does it all collide in a little ball in the middle and fall
to the ground? Of course not, the shards fly past each other and
continue in every direction until they hit something (wall, your face, air
friction, etc) that absorbs their energy. The violence of a CRT implosion
is something that simply can't be appreciated without seeing it, with over
14 pounds pressing in on every square inch of the tube (and there's more
square inches than it looks like) that's a LOT of potential energy.

And the reality is that its normally the neck that gets broken and the
worst that normally happens is that the cathode ends up hitting the
inside of the front surface and leaves a rather interesting pattern there.

Just recently seen a french doco where povs were scavenging from
discarded TVs, basically ratting them for the yokes for the copper,
in big piles of discarded TVs. They were pretty gung ho getting into
the case, basically smashing the back off with a small wrecking bar
etc, just to get in quickly. A few of the TVs did end up with the neck
broken in the process and with a rather interesting pattern on the
screen where the cathode had obviously hit it.

No big deal and no need to curl up under your bed cowering in fear.
 
R

Rod Speed

Jan 1, 1970
0
"... In the early 1980's, the mainstream technology for televisions with
screens 30 inches or larger was the use of rear projection systems both
in the Japanese and North American markets. The reason was simply
because it was impossible from a practical application standpoint to
employ the use of CRT technology in the manufacture of TVs that size.

Have fun explaining my 33" glass tube widescreen TV.

So much for this mindless waffle.
The production of a larger CRT monitor becomes exponentially
difficult in terms of weight and strength. A vacuum state exists
inside of a CRT, and the high atmospheric pressure required for
larger CRTs also multiplies the dangers of implosion. The most
popular and safest size for large CRT-based TVs was 28 inches.

Pathetic, really.
In contemplating the production of a 37-inch model, the development team
determined that the general strength would have to be four- to fivefold that
of the 28-inch TV; an extremely high engineering hurdle to clear. ..."

Others managed it fine, even if you clowns couldnt.
BTW, "... and the high atmospheric pressure
required for larger CRTs ..." is an error.

Yep, that entire quote is a pig ignorant steaming turd.
The static pressure is the same, but the total
pressure summed over the tube increases.

Whoopy do.
The likelihood of breakage increases also
due to mechanical and weight problems.

And its perfectly possible to produce a viable design anyway.
Search for (dangers implosion tv tube) for more.

No thanks, just more mindless neurotic silly stuff.
 
N

NSM

Jan 1, 1970
0
| Yep, that entire quote is a pig ignorant steaming turd.

PLONK!
 
T

t.hoehler

Jan 1, 1970
0
normal use.

The front is by far the strongest part. Also, modern tubes have some
implosion protection, they will implode however when struck in the right
way, just a bit less impressive compared to the older ones.

So true about the faceplate being rugged. My nephew shot a bb gun in the
family room and hit my brother's Quasar's tv screen. Put a nice chip in it,
not unlike a stone chip in a car windshield. I told my brother to get it
fixed asap, could be dangerous. He used the tv for about 10 more years, the
damage was in the corner, no big deal! Sheesh, what an idiot! My nephew had
a big footprint on his ass for a few days afterwards.
Tom
 
Z

zap

Jan 1, 1970
0

Fat lot of good that will you do you, you stupid pig ignorant plonker.

You seriously 'think' that anyone actually gives
a flying red **** what you do or do not read ?
 
T

Tim Kett

Jan 1, 1970
0
Rod Speed said:
More mindless pig ignorance. The screen
has very thick glass for a reason, stupid.

Basically because if the risk was anything like you pig ignorantly claimed,
plenty would end up injured with stuff falling against the tube in normal use.

They dont, its just another silly pig ignorant urban myth.

Oh, well maybe my electronics instructor lied, but I doubt it.
 
Top