Do I need a new power supply?
Frustrated
ram checkers on my Corsair 1 GB dual channel memory and everything is
fine. The BSO messages say device error or device driver error.
I get the BSO even while running Windows 7 with similar messages.
My configuration is:
Asus LG 775 MB
Pentium D 2.8 GHZ
512 MB x2 Corsair dual channel RAM
128 MB AGP 8x Video
Onboard Sound
17 inch LCD Monitor
1 Floppy Drive
1 USB keyboard
1 USB hub from monitor
1 USB extension cable
1 USB wireless mouse
1 CD/DVD ROM drive (8x)
1 x 250 GB Maxtor Drive 7200 RPM
1 x 250 GB WD 7200 RPM drive
2 x 500 GB Hitachi drive (previously 1x 1000 GB Seagate Drive)
1 400 Watt PSP PSU: +3.3V 28 OA, +5V 30 OA, +12V1 18OA, +12V2=18 OA,
+5Vsb=2.5A, 12V=0.5 A
(+3.3V& 5v) = 180 W, +12V1 & 12V= 348 W MAX.
John Doe
> I've been getting the dreaded blue screen of death periodically.
> I ran ram checkers on my Corsair 1 GB dual channel memory and
> everything is fine. The BSO messages say device error or device
> driver error.
>
> I get the BSO even while running Windows 7 with similar messages.
Keep in mind that power supply issues can include your house current.
In other words, if the indication is that you have bad power, it might
be something behind your power supply. Not saying it is, just pointing
out another possibility.
Good luck.
--
Google has destroyed access to the USENET archive... down with
Google
Paul
Have you recorded all the numbers from the BSOD ?
You can look up stop errors here.
You can disable automatic restarts, if you need the BSOD message
to stay still on the screen. The BSOD may also be recorded in the
Event Viewer.
http://askbobrankin.com/auto-restart.jpg (untick the box)
If the name of a device driver is mentioned for each BSOD,
that may hint at the device that has a problem.
If the device is storage related, you might try a hard drive
diagnostic from the company that makes the disk.
It is important to note the circumstances of the BSOD if possible.
For example, say the hard drive is damaged, and you run CHKDSK,
thinking the problem is a file structure. If the disk cannot
write data without corruption, you could lose everything.
Same goes for functions like defrag. Commands like that
are only safe, if it looks like the basic hardware is
perfectly functioning. Using utilities that move a lot
of data, in the face of flaky operation, can yield big
disasters.
You may want to make sure you have some kind of backup of
what is on disk, in case something bad happens.
Paul
Frustrated
:: Keep in mind that power supply issues can include your house current.
:: In other words, if the indication is that you have bad power, it
:: might be something behind your power supply. Not saying it is, just
:: pointing out another possibility.
Good tip. I live in a apartment hi-rise less than 15 years old. The power
is very stable and no anomolies reported with other devices or computers.
In addition, I forgot to mention I have about 3 fans working too in the
computer too. If I h ad to guess, I would say this all is likely causing
some instability. Maybe even the case isn't grounded properly too. I know I
added felt washers when I built it a few years ago.
Frustrated
:: ::
:: Have you recorded all the numbers from the BSOD ?
Yes. Nothing worthwhile. Stop errors some pointing to kernel 32. Even when
connected to Microsoft no meaningful info is described.
::
:: You can look up stop errors here.
::
:: http://aumha.org/a/stop.htm
::
:: You can disable automatic restarts, if you need the BSOD message
:: to stay still on the screen. The BSOD may also be recorded in the
:: Event Viewer.
::
:: http://askbobrankin.com/auto-restart.jpg (untick the box)
::
:: If the name of a device driver is mentioned for each BSOD,
:: that may hint at the device that has a problem.:: It is important to note
the circumstances of the BSOD if possible.
:: For example, say the hard drive is damaged, and you run CHKDSK,
:: thinking the problem is a file structure. If the disk cannot
:: write data without corruption, you could lose everything.
:: Same goes for functions like defrag. Commands like that
:: are only safe, if it looks like the basic hardware is
:: perfectly functioning. Using utilities that move a lot
:: of data, in the face of flaky operation, can yield big
:: disasters.
::
:: You may want to make sure you have some kind of backup of
:: what is on disk, in case something bad happens.
Very good tip....I completely forgot about the implications of defrag and
chdsk on the file structure on a drive that may not be working well. I've
been a victim of this once before.
westom
> Very good tip....I completely forgot about the implications of defrag and
> chdsk on the file structure on a drive that may not be working well. I've
> been a victim of this once before.
Defrag and chkdsk will not fix problems that result in BSOD. AC
power is also and obviously completely irrelevant to your BSOD. How
useful is that BSOD message? Numbers and words provide massive
information to those who know this stuff. Same probably means little
to you. That is why you are posting here. Your useful replies will
be from the few who actually understand what that BSOD is saying. Who
are sufficiently informed as to not blame bad household current - a
classic myth - for such problems.
Your replies will only be as useful as the information provided.
That means posting those BSODs as Paul has requested. Otherwise
expect more responses from the least technically informed such as
blaming household current.
JIMMIE
I was recently getiing the same problem and did a little research and
found that there were updates to several of the drivers I was using.
Replaced the drivers and everything has been working great since. That
was about 4 months ago.. I did kind of a shotgun upgraded and I dont
know if there was one particular driver at fault. I also dont know
anything abot the BSOD messages I was getting. One other thing I did
was reseat all the circuit cards. This was something I used to do
roughly simi annually when I clean out the dust but hadnt done it to
this computer since it was new about two years ago. I chalked the
repair up to just general hardware and software maintenace which I had
neglected to do. Also I had neglected the cleaning. Your guess is as
good, probably better, than mind as to which action fixed it.
Jimmie
Jimmie
Mike Tomlinson
writes
>Yes. Nothing worthwhile. Stop errors some pointing to kernel 32.
You could not be more wrong. The stop numbers will help you diagnose
the problem! That's what they are there for.
--
(\__/)
(='.'=) Bunny says Windows 7 is Vi$ta reloaded.
(")_(") http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/windows_7.png
westom
> One other thing I did was reseat all the circuit cards. This was
> something I used to do roughly simi annually when I clean out the
> dust but hadnt done it to this computer since it was new about
> two years ago.
If reseating a card fixes it, then the card is 100% defective. Any
'corrosion' that might form in a connector is made completely
irrelevant in design. But when myths promote 'maintenance', then
reseating myths get promoted. Another symptom of a tech without
electrical knowledge is using an eraser to 'clean' contacts. At least
one tech got 'reassigned' for using such repair techniques.
nobody >
> If reseating a card fixes it, then the card is 100% defective.
Oh really ?? What planet do you live on?
Charlie
"westom" <wes...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0811e387-cd96-4c1a...@l28g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 28, 1:18 pm, JIMMIE <JIMMIEDEE...@YAHOO.COM> wrote:
> One other thing I did was reseat all the circuit cards. This was
> something I used to do roughly simi annually when I clean out the
> dust but hadnt done it to this computer since it was new about
> two years ago.
>
> If reseating a card fixes it, then the card is 100% defective.
>
The slot connector that the card fits into is often the problem that
reseating fixes. So stating that the card is defective if reseating
fixes it is poor advice.
> Any 'corrosion' that might form in a connector is made completely
> irrelevant in design.
Please explain.
>
> But when myths promote 'maintenance', then reseating myths get
> promoted.
>
I'm not sure how you determine that reseating or anything else is a
myth. It couldn't be from first hand knowledge (actually trying it).
> Another symptom of a tech without electrical knowledge is using an
> eraser to
> 'clean' contacts. At least one tech got 'reassigned' for using such
> repair
> techniques.
To a better paying job?
Charlie
Z
WinXP is currently a better version than 7 or Vi$ta for your case I
think. as where I am living, others would said that sometimes you can
see the BSOD when the temperature get too high somewhere in your
computer case, especially if you haven't cleaned it for a long time or
it gets aging (maybe the quality of your hardware is not quite good).
also some software, hardware, drivers you got recently makes a bad
compatibility with your own computer system, what makes you see the
Blue Screen of Death. as I do, I will remove the ones recently got. if
the BSOD shows again, I would remove the whole system directories,
then reinstall with the original setup version, update all the
patches, install the newest drivers. some apps could be the origin of
the BSOD, those apps should all have other better replaceable ones.
You must not install those unstable apps. the hot top apps are always
stable or have recent stable versions. after the installation of those
ones, you can add the apps that are uncertain whether are stable or
not, one by one. if the BSOD shows, you may roll back the installation
untill the BSOD won't shows, and now you'll make sure which one is
unstable. if those measures don't work well, you may try some lower
level measures which have been posted by others above. ah, you should
make sure your HDD is in well condition at the first using some HDD
scanning software, or back up your imortant data on your HDDs which
are not the one for booting. and what's more, you should make sure
your room voltage is not too low nor too high...
it seems a bit too long I've written, and I'm not sure whether it
would be read wholly as well as whether it could be helpful as an
article so long... whereas I'm concentrated at my poor English...
westom
> I'm not sure how you determine that reseating or anything else is a
> myth. It couldn't be from first hand knowledge (actually trying it).
Manufacturer specifications and a few generations of design
experience have well proven that fact. Reseating to fix a problem
means the problem remains unsolved. Reseating is speculation promoted
by those incapable of locating that onboard failure. They blame only
what they understand.
Which should I believe? Generations of experience and numeric specs
from every connector manufacturer? Or claims that were popular myths
even 40 years ago? Myths too routinely promoted by untrained techs
and not supported by even one fact.
These 'reseat the connector' myths are proven with insults and
mockery. Identifying symptoms of the least knowledgeable. Basic
engineering numbers mean a design works normally even under worst case
connector conditions. Amazing how many know otherwise due to
hearsay.
Those with poorest training always know using only observation. Are
typical of A+ Certified computer techs who need not know how
electricity works to become certified. Who *know* only using mockery
and insult.
Reseating connectors was always a first symptom of techs not likely
to make the cut.
Mike Tomlinson
<charl...@verEYEzon.net> writes
>So stating that the card is defective if reseating
>fixes it is poor advice.
Par for the course from westom.
>Please explain.
He won't, he'll just bullshit and wave his hands.
>I'm not sure how you determine that reseating or anything else is a
>myth. It couldn't be from first hand knowledge (actually trying it).
Quite. He's an armchair critic with no real-world experience.
>To a better paying job?
Let's hope so. Cleaning card and memory contacts with an eraser is a
tried and tested technique. Of course, westom, not having and real-
world experience, doesn't know that.
Hey Tom! Going to answer these questions or not?
from "Bud~":
Still never answered - embarrassing questions:
- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in
suppressors?
- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest
solution"?
- Why does the IEEE guide say in one example "the only effective way of
protecting the equipment is to use a multiport protector"?
- In the IEEE example how would a service panel suppressor provide any
protection?
- Why does SquareD say "electronic equipment may need additional
protection by installing plug-in [suppressors] at the point of use."
For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug-in
suppressors are effective.
from me:
"You've claimed this on many occasions over many years [to work for a
"PSU shop"] but have never posted any evidence when challenged, for
example your claim that you have a degree. When challenged to provide
evidence of same (by anybody), you've invariably gone quiet or reverted
to personal attacks."
And this one (odd how my prediction came true, isn't it?)
"Explain how [to measure ripple voltage with a multimeter] in words of
one syllable, with numbers. (You won't, of course; you'll run away like
you usually do when challenged.)"
And this one?
"And how exactly do you put the PSU of a non-booting PC under maximum
load?"
And a new one?
"Can we please have a formal definition of a "computer grade" UPS?"
<fx: tumbleweed>
Charlie
On Jun 28, 9:44 pm, "Charlie" <charlieD...@verEYEzon.net> wrote:
>> I'm not sure how you determine that reseating or anything else is a
>> myth. It couldn't be from first hand knowledge (actually trying it).
> Manufacturer specifications
I fail to see how manufacturer specifications prove anything. At least
in this context.
> and a few generations of design experience have well proven that fact.
One of the main considerations in designing a connector (or almost
anything else) is cost. It has been my observation that connectors in
home computer equipment are designed to be made as cheaply as possible.
Heat and other environmental conditions can cause the integrity of the
connection to be compromised. Reseating can often fix the connection,
sometimes for the remaining life of the machine. If you have to
continue to fix by reseating often then you *may* have a defective card
or a defective slot connector.
> Reseating to fix a problem means the problem remains unsolved.
Huh?
> Reseating is speculation promoted by those incapable of locating that
> onboard > failure.
Reseating can fix a flakey connection caused by very tiny amounts of
contaminants, corrosion or worn plating. Certainly it can mask other
problems like a hairline crack in a trace on the card or poor solder
joint on the slot connecter etc., but those are in my experience much
less likely.
> They blame only what they understand.
I'm afraid I don't understand your statement?
> Which should I believe? Generations of experience and numeric specs
> from every connector manufacturer? Or claims that were popular myths
> even 40 years ago? Myths too routinely promoted by untrained techs
> and not supported by even one fact.
Believe your own eyes. Your own experiences. If you have no experience
then ask for guidance from others who have. Get yourself a book on
general troubleshooting. It doesn't even have to be computer
troubleshooting. That will help more than any number of design spec
sheets. Keep a log of what you do when you repair something and check
that log when you do later repairs to see if there are any trends.
People who do this soon learn that what is most likely to be the cause
of a problem. They also learn that some things are easy (and cheap) to
do and have at least some chance of success. Why replace a card and/or
connector when reseating is cheap, easy and often works?
> These 'reseat the connector' myths are proven with insults and
> mockery.
Nothing is proven by insults and mockery.
> Identifying symptoms of the least knowledgeable.
Again, nothing is proven by insults and mockery.
> Basic engineering numbers mean a design works normally even under
> worst case
> connector conditions.
I'm not sure what you mean by "Basic engineering numbers" but I would
suggest to anyone to be very skeptical of anything you read. There are
good designs and bad. There are bad designs that use *cooked* specs to
make them look good.
> snip <
> Those with poorest training always know using only observation.
Of course observation is only *part* of learning but it is the most
important part when you are speaking about troubleshooting and repairing
computers.
> snip <
> Reseating connectors was always a first symptom of techs not likely
> to make the cut.
If a company cuts techs who fix computers quickly and cheaply by
reseating and keeps techs who are so sure that reseating won't work that
they won't even try it then they are doing a great disservice to their
customers and themselves.
Charlie
Charlie
"Mike Tomlinson" <mi...@jasper.org.uk> wrote in message
news:2wi+4TAr...@jasper.org.uk...
> In article <h2933g$8g5$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, Charlie
> <charl...@verEYEzon.net> writes
>
>>So stating that the card is defective if reseating
>>fixes it is poor advice.
>
> Par for the course from westom.
>
>>Please explain.
>
> He won't, he'll just bullshit and wave his hands.
My statements and follow-up post were meant more for others reading this
group, especially someone new to the group who may think that reseating
a card has no value. I have done this before when someone makes
unsubstantiated statements that contradict what I have observed. I am
by no means an expert on fixing computers but I have fixed quite a few
by following logical troubleshooting procedures. My notes show me that
over the years there have been numerous times where reseating fixed the
problem permanently. I personally believe that it should be one of the
first things you should try when you encounter flakey hardware problems.
But I would say to anyone, don't believe me or westom, try it yourself.
It's easy, it's free and it just might work.
Charlie
Mike Tomlinson
<charl...@verEYEzon.net> writes
>My statements and follow-up post were meant more for others reading this
>group, especially someone new to the group who may think that reseating
>a card has no value. I have done this before when someone makes
>unsubstantiated statements that contradict what I have observed.
Quite. The problem with westom (aka w_tom, w_tom1) is that he has a
long-standing habit of doing this. He tags onto threads which relate to
power supplies, surge protection and PC repair (personally, I believe he
googles for them or has Google Alerts set) and adds his pennorth, which
is usually irrelevant to the OP's problem. He has been doing this for
many years; I'm unsure if you are aware of his previous history.
As you say, it's useful to correct his nonsense in case the unwary take
it at face value. He will never respond when challenged, but post more
hand-waving boilerplate which ignores any questions put to him.
> I am
>by no means an expert on fixing computers but I have fixed quite a few
>by following logical troubleshooting procedures. My notes show me that
>over the years there have been numerous times where reseating fixed the
>problem permanently.
You and just about everyone else. We know that cards and motherboards
are built down to the absolute minimum price and that quality suffers,
so card edge connections/slot connectors won't be up to military or
industrial standards. westom's rambling about "standards" and "numbers"
and "specifications" over "generations" (what, they had PCI slots before
the war?) are just so much smoke-blowing.
You and I follow a logical sequence of events based on observation of
the symptoms, which hopefully will resolve the problem or identify a
faulty component.
> I personally believe that it should be one of the
>first things you should try when you encounter flakey hardware problems.
Yes, I absolutely agree.
westom
> I fail to see how manufacturer specifications prove anything. At least
> in this context.
Then you have never worked as a designer. When selling on costs,
then specs get *forgotten*. Meanwhile what was posted was well proven
and routine even generations ago. Design of a connector is well
proven in its design history, and ... well if your logic was accurate,
then computers are routinely failing also due to resistor failures.
Resistors (like connectors) routinely meet well proven industry
standards. Then we design so that even least conductive connectors
cause no problems.
Well proven standards date back to knowledge numerous decades ago.
Any problem that is fixed by reseating a connection means the problem
remains unsolved. But that reality contradicts popular myths.
In another example (and I have too many to post), they kept
reseating connectors. And then the equipment would fail a week or a
month later. These 'most technically ignorant' even *knew* cleaning
contacts with an eraser fixed the problem - classic junk science
reasoning.
. We traced failure to its source. In this case, a manufacturing
defect. Manufacturing used a connector designed for a heavier gauge
wire. Same price. Wrong connector. Technicians who routinely *knew
without first learning* would keep reseating connectors rather than
trace that problem to its source. And so the field was full of
defective electronics - because they kept fixing by reseating
connectors. Just another example of the naive blaming only what they
wanted to believe rather than solving a problem. Another example of
techs using classic 'junk science' reasoning. Reseating connectors to
*know* fixes something - only because that is a popular urban myth.
Another myths posted here: "you have bad power". If power was that
bad, then power damaged motorized appliances such as central air.
Power that varies so much as to be destructive to air conditioners or
refrigerators can be irrelevant to computers. Computers were required
to be that robust even before PCs existed. Naysayers will routinely
deny this. Naysayers are quick to blame the "usual suspects" rather
than first learn what actually causes problems. Many foolishly
believe reseating connectors is a solution - for the same reason they
also *knew* Saddam had WMDs. They just know. That popular myth is
sufficient proof.
Apparently Frustrated fixed his problem by first learning what could
actually cause problems. Then limiting solutions to what needed
upgrading. Fixing a problem by first learning what could actually
cause a failure. Ignoring popular myths such as reseating connectors
or cleaning them with an eraser. That popular connector myth exists
when fundamental electrical knowledge does not exist.
If reseating a connector fixes a failure, then the original problem
remains unsolved.
Charlie
> In article <h2b2qg$4hh$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, Charlie
> <charl...@verEYEzon.net> writes
>
>>My statements and follow-up post were meant more for others reading
>>this
>>group, especially someone new to the group who may think that
>>reseating
>>a card has no value. I have done this before when someone makes
>>unsubstantiated statements that contradict what I have observed.
>
> Quite. The problem with westom (aka w_tom, w_tom1) is that he has a
> long-standing habit of doing this. He tags onto threads which relate
> to
> power supplies, surge protection and PC repair (personally, I believe
> he
> googles for them or has Google Alerts set) and adds his pennorth,
> which
> is usually irrelevant to the OP's problem. He has been doing this for
> many years; I'm unsure if you are aware of his previous history.
Yes I'm aware of his history, I've been lurking on this group for
several years (and sometimes post). I don't usually comment on westom's
often repeated views on surge suppressors and power supplies because
their are numerous others more qualified than I am to do that.
Charlie
Charlie
> On Jun 29, 3:19 pm, "Charlie" <charlieD...@verEYEzon.net> wrote:
>> I fail to see how manufacturer specifications prove anything. At
>> least
>> in this context.
>
> Then you have never worked as a designer.
I have worked with and for designers usually on the "implementing the
design" end (not computer card connector design). I know quite well how
misleading written specifications are sometimes. I'm being kind in
saying misleading for some of them are downright lies to sell the
product. Anyway, the context I was referring to was your assertion
that:
"If reseating a card fixes it, then the card is 100% defective."
This is not so no matter how you look at it. I will grant that you
added:
"Any 'corrosion' that might form in a connector is made completely
irrelevant in design."
I'm still waiting for an explanation of that. Talk of design
specifications is not an explanation. Incidentally, corrosion is not
the only reason a card connection may need to be reseated.
> When selling on costs, then specs get *forgotten*.
Exactly, so why do you put so much faith in specs. You must also keep
in mind that the context of this discussion is troubleshooting and
hopefully repairing a person's computer. Not whether or not someone's
design specification says that the connection will always remain
perfect.
> ... well if your logic was accurate,
> then computers are routinely failing also due to resistor failures.
> Resistors (like connectors) routinely meet well proven industry
> standards.
Analogies are fun but they're rarely very useful. They tend to confuse
things. Yours succeeds admirably if confusion was what you intended.
> Then we design so that even least conductive connectors
> cause no problems.
Ah, perfection. I love those kinds of designs :-)
> Well proven standards date back to knowledge numerous decades ago.
Now you switch from design specs to standards. Are you speaking of
standards generated by committee or the de facto standard we see in
personal computers. Try to remember that this is newsgroup for
homebuilt PC hardware and the original poster was seeking information
about a problem with his PC.
> Any problem that is fixed by reseating a connection means the problem
> remains unsolved. But that reality contradicts popular myths.
You said that before. I disagree.
> In another example (and I have too many to post), they kept
> reseating connectors. And then the equipment would fail a week or a
> month later.
I certainly agree that reseating is not going to cure all or even most
computer problems.
> These 'most technically ignorant' even *knew* cleaning
> contacts with an eraser fixed the problem - classic junk science
> reasoning.
We are not talking about science here. We are talking about proper
troubleshooting/repair techniques. Well at least I am.
> We traced failure to its source. In this case, a manufacturing
> defect. Manufacturing used a connector designed for a heavier gauge
> wire. Same price. Wrong connector. Technicians who routinely *knew
> without first learning* would keep reseating connectors rather than
> trace that problem to its source. And so the field was full of
> defective electronics - because they kept fixing by reseating
> connectors. Just another example of the naive blaming only what they
> wanted to believe rather than solving a problem. Another example of
> techs using classic 'junk science' reasoning. Reseating connectors to
> *know* fixes something - only because that is a popular urban myth.
But don't you see. Your story above is the perfect example of how
reseating helped find the problem. It narrowed down the search to the
connector area. If they had used your "read the specs and standards"
method they would have spent huge amounts of time with the design
decisions of the capacitors, resistors, case air flow, hard drive
bearings, affects of cosmic rays on memory chips, etc. etc. And guess
what, even if you did learn all there was to know you would still have
to find out if these specs/standards were adhered to. In other words
test everything. This may make sense to you but not to me.
< snipped irrelevant stuff about bad power, Saddam and WMDs, etc. >
> If reseating a connector fixes a failure, then the original problem
> remains unsolved.
Your logic speaks for itself.
Charlie
westom
>> We traced failure to its source. In this case, a manufacturing
>> defect. Manufacturing used a connector designed for a heavier gauge
>> wire. Same price. Wrong connector. Technicians who routinely *knew
>> without first learning* would keep reseating connectors rather than
>> trace that problem to its source. And so the field was full of
>> defective electronics - because they kept fixing by reseating
>
> But don't you see. Your story above is the perfect example of how
> reseating helped find the problem. It narrowed down the search to the
> connector area.
It cost the company maybe $200,000 because the first and every tech
afterwards used a classic myth - reseating connectors - top ignore the
problem. Ignored the problem so long that the junk science created a
$200,000 expense.
Those techs did what many ill trained techs so often do. They
changed things until something worked. They did not find the problem
before fixing it. And they assumed connectors can be fixed by
cleaning or reseating - which only happens when the defect is
elsewhere. IOW they 'fixed symptoms' rather than 'solve the problem'.
You don't grasp the concept. Fixing things comes directly from
concepts taught in junior high science. To have a solution means both
experimental evidence AND fundamental underlying theory. Without
both, that is classic junk science.
In this case, experimental evidence is 'reseating eliminates a
failure'. Specs state that anything that 'reseating' would do must
never happen - in decades. Therefore both requirements for 'solving'
anything did not exist. If reseating fixes something, then electrical
reasons for why must also be explained. Reseating a connector means a
gross design failure or a defect located elsewhere. Reseating is
'curing symptoms'; not solving problems.
If reseating a connector solved that problem, then an integrated
circuit may be defective and getting worse with age. The tech simply
ignored the problem. Often because most techs do not even understand
the electrical concepts of IC operation.
Untrained techs rarely grasp it. That concept is what engineers
must teach their techs. Fixing something by 'reseating' is a classic
junk science solution. A tech that fixes something and does not know
why: well that is why Consumer magazines created trivial problems,
took their machines to certified computer techs, and rarely got the
problem solved. 'Reseating' solutions are common among computer techs
who do not even know how electricity works.
Why? A+ Certified computer techs need no electrical knowledge to
pass the test.
If 'reseating' eliminates a failure, then a problem still exists (is
unsolved). Those techs used junk science reasoning to keep
'reseating'. Therefore all products went out the door with the same
unsolved defect. One with contempt for junk science stumbled on a
$200,000 mistake. A $200,000 mistake because techs were using classic
junk science - 'reseating connectors'. Failure disappeared. But the
problem remained. They violated principles even taught in junior
high science. They cured symptoms; did not solve problems.
Because they kept solving the problem by reseating connectors, then
they created a $200,000 loss. Fixing a computer by reseating
connectors is classic junk science - means the problem remains
undetected and unsolved. An overwhelming majority of computer techs
would cure failures by only reseating or cleaning connector contacts.
Why does reseating temporarily cure a symptom? All connectors are
self-cleaning - as even defined in specifications. If cleaning
contacts eliminates a failure, then problem remains unsolved. Number
one problem - a tech who forgot why those lessons in junior high
science apply - a tech that practices junk science. Reseating
connectors only cures symptoms; does not solve the problem.
SteveH
> On Jun 30, 12:35 am, "Charlie" <charlieD...@verEYEzon.net> wrote:
>>> We traced failure to its source. In this case, a manufacturing
Number
> one problem - a tech who forgot why those lessons in junior high
> science apply - a tech that practices junk science. Reseating
> connectors only cures symptoms; does not solve the problem.
Ah, Mr W.Tom, still talking bollocks I see.
SteveH
Mike Tomlinson
s.com>, westom <wes...@gmail.com> writes
> It cost the company maybe $200,000
[snip reams and reams of repetitive waffle]
> Because they kept solving the problem by reseating connectors, then
>they created a $200,000 loss.
Note how in w_twat's wacky world, that which starts out as "maybe $200k"
becomes "definitely $200k" many, many tedious words later.
No justification or accounting is presented for that figure. w_twat
made it up and later presents it as fact. This is w_twat's junk
science.
Hey Tom! When are you going to apologise for twisting my words where you
alleged that I told jasee to buy a replacement UPS when I had done no
such thing? You fucked off out of that thread pretty smartish once you
realised your mistake, didn't you?
Are you going to answer these questions or not?
from "Bud~":
from me:
And this one?
And a new one?
<fx: tumbleweed>
--
Charlie
> On Jun 30, 12:35 am, "Charlie" <charlieD...@verEYEzon.net> wrote:
>>> We traced failure to its source. In this case, a manufacturing
>>> defect. Manufacturing used a connector designed for a heavier gauge
>>> wire. Same price. Wrong connector. Technicians who routinely *knew
>>> without first learning* would keep reseating connectors rather than
>>> trace that problem to its source. And so the field was full of
>>> defective electronics - because they kept fixing by reseating
>>> connectors. ...
>>
>> But don't you see. Your story above is the perfect example of how
>> reseating helped find the problem. It narrowed down the search to
>> the
>> connector area.
>
> It cost the company maybe $200,000 because the first and every tech
> afterwards used a classic myth - reseating connectors - top ignore the
> problem. Ignored the problem so long that the junk science created a
> $200,000 expense.
I don't believe that I or anyone else in this thread was suggesting that
the original poster ignore the problem. Certainly, if reseating didn't
work (including "only worked for a short time") then it's time for a
different approach.
>
> Those techs did what many ill trained techs so often do. They
> changed things until something worked. They did not find the problem
> before fixing it. And they assumed connectors can be fixed by
> cleaning or reseating - which only happens when the defect is
> elsewhere. IOW they 'fixed symptoms' rather than 'solve the problem'.
Reseating in the connector sometimes 'solves the problem', sometimes
does not and sometimes helps to narrow down the search to what is
causing the problem. In any case it is an easy and cost effective thing
to do.
> You don't grasp the concept.
Not your concept.
> Fixing things comes directly from
> concepts taught in junior high science.
While I agree that people who understand the scientific method are
likely to be good at troubleshooting (because the thought processes
involve a similar logic), I believe this is getting too far off topic.
> To have a solution means both
> experimental evidence AND fundamental underlying theory. Without
> both, that is classic junk science.
Oh well, if you insist on bringing science into a discussion that
doesn't need it:
A major tenet of the scientific method is that, when you propose a
hypothesis, the evidence you use to support it should be reproducible.
In other words, others should be able to perform the same experiments
and come up with the same results.
As an example, if a person proposes:
"If reseating a card fixes it, then the card is 100% defective."
Now ask yourself. Is this proposal scientific? I stated and so have
others that they have fixed computer problems by reseating connectors.
We cannot reproduce the results. In fact we have been shown no evidence
to support the claim. Therefore the claim is not scientific.
Normally, I'd say, so what, but it was you who decided to bring science
into a discussion so you'll have to live with it.
>
> In this case, experimental evidence is 'reseating eliminates a
> failure'.
Agreed.
> Specs state that anything that 'reseating' would do must
> never happen - in decades.
In other words the claim (specs) was not reproducible (not scientific).
> Therefore both requirements for 'solving'
> anything did not exist. If reseating fixes something, then electrical
> reasons for why must also be explained.
Only if the fix was temporary as it was in this case. In many cases the
fix is permanent. The fact that the techs you know are incompetent, is
irrelavant to the discussion.
> Reseating a connector means a
> gross design failure or a defect located elsewhere.
We have already shown this claim to be 'not reproducible' (see above).
< snipped much talk about untrained people >
Much of what you claimed about reseating remains unsubstantiated by you
or anyone else. My personal experience shows your claim to be false.
Your rebuttal seems to center on tech people being incompetent which has
nothing to do with your claim. I think you know that, but in case you
don't, I would like to mention that there are competent people in every
field and there are incompetent people in every field. This holds for
scientists, engineers, designers, A+ techs, ditch diggers, toilet
cleaners, and people who make claims in newsgroups :-)
Charlie
westom
>> I don't believe that I or anyone else in this thread was suggesting that
> the original poster ignore the problem. Certainly, if reseating didn't
> work (including "only worked for a short time") then it's time for a
> different approach.
If reseating fixes anything, then nothing is learned or solved.
Worse, the problem is now made harder to find. If reseating does not
fix anything, the tech is no closer to a solution - only wasted time
and energy. But reseating is what the ill trained will recommend
simply because they don't understand anything else. Worse, they did
not learn basic connector concepts.
Good diagnostics means using basic scientific methods. Same thought
process also made obvious that Saddam did not have WMDs. But many who
ignored good scientific thinking also blindly and foolishly believed
those WMD lies. It's not off topic. #1 reason to fix things is to
learn - to practice healthy thought processes. Also why every
military academy graduates everyone with engineering training. They
need people who can think properly; can deal with reality; can solve
problems. That means the same scientific thought process.
So what does *reseating a connector* do? If you have sufficient
computer knowledge, then your every post answered that question with
numbers. But datasheet and application notes make it obvious. Any
change is trivial. So trivial that if anything changes, then problems
exist elsewhere. I keep posting this. Where do you say, in technical
terms, what reseating does? What gets changed?
"A major tenet of the scientific method": the experiment says
nothing if the hypothesis does not provide (is not based in)
underlying principles - also called the underlying theory. Does not
matter how many times a magician can make the girl disappear (the
experiment). It does not prove transporters can beam people away. If
your hypothesis is based in myths or classic junk science assumptions,
then the experiment (your experience) says nothing. Reality demands
a hypothesis based in underlying principles. Reseating connectors is
junk science; is not based in any underlying principles. Manufacturers
even say why in numeric specifications. 'Reseating' is only proven
by the same 'scientific method' that proved Saddam's WMDs.
I will not rewrite long application notes and manufacturer specs
from connector manufacturers that you must have read before posting.
Your posts demonstrate you never read them. Your replies even
demonstrate contempt for how equipment is designed; so that connectors
not cause failures.
We who did this stuff even long before PC existed could immediately
spot poor techs. They would fix things by reseating connectors and
cleaning them with an eraser. Observation identified which techs were
inventing solutions because they could not understand the actual
reason for failure. Their analysis was devoid of numbers. We often
see the same poorly trained trying to solve electrical problems with
more chassis fans. 'Reseating' solutions are a classic symptom of
insufficient technical training. Insufficient technical knowledge is
why so many computer techs *solve* problems by reseating. They are
using 'experience' not tempered by underlying knowledge - basic
principles. Experience without underlying principles - junk science.
Electronics are designed so that connector limitations cause no
problems. When reseating solved problems, we knew 1) the actual
problem is not identified or remains, 2) the tech needs reassignment,
retraining, or a new employer, and 3) a fool trusts experience that
was not tempered by learning underlying principles.
Too few Americans grasp these most basic diagnostics techniques.
Too many just blindly know - shotgun - never bothered to first learn.
Saddam's WMDs are a classic example. Just another reason why the
Silicon Valley needs so many immigrants. Too many domestic computer
techs automatically know reseating connectors is a repair technique -
when the spec numbers and underlying design principles say otherwise.
I will not rewrite those long application notes from connector
manufactures that a learned tech has read. If reseating a connector
cures the symptom, a minor change created by reseating has only made
the intermittent even harder to locate. But an untrained tech will
immediately assume he has *fixed* it. No wonder Consumer magazines
had so many trivial problems unsolved by so many computer repairmen.
Computer tech even replaced a perfectly good power supply because
shotgunning is how junk science reasoning works. Reseating connectors
- just another example of shotgunning based only in wild speculation.
We watched the ill trained even clean connectors with an eraser.
And so that company suffered $200,000 in losses because their techs
were so naive as to fix electronics by reseating connectors. The
problem was not solved until the engineer saw bad workmanship
practices (reseating connectors), and then identified the problem.
The problem that a trained tech was being paid to find; but have been
perverted by myths. Instead the techs were "reseating connectors".
So ill trained as to cost the company about $200K.
TM
"Frustrated" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:hBA1m.17545$KQ4....@newsfe18.iad...
I'll bet it's memory. Those so-called "ram-checkers" aren't worth squat.
RMA the Corsair sticks (if you want). Get a new pair of 2X2GB,
Frustrated
"TM" <tee...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:NAO2m.4852$c82....@newsfe08.iad...
I'm thinking it is the memory too. I have an old 512 MB stick of ram, I'll
install that and see how that goes. However, it could also be my
motherboard: Asus P2B-VM.
Frustrated
On Jun 28, 2:49 am, "Frustrated" <n...@none.com> wrote:
> Very good tip....I completely forgot about the implications of defrag and
> chdsk on the file structure on a drive that may not be working well. I've
> been a victim of this once before.
Your useful replies will be from the few who actually understand what that
BSOD is saying. Who
are sufficiently informed as to not blame bad household current - a
classic myth - for such problems.
Your replies will only be as useful as the information provided.
That means posting those BSODs as Paul has requested. Otherwise
expect more responses from the least technically informed such as
blaming household current.
Numbers didnt provide any useful information when I cross checked them via
google, that's why they were not posted. For those inclined to make guesses
here are some logs:
Event Type: Error
Event Source: System Error
Event Category: (102)
Event ID: 1003
Date: 2009-07-25
Time: 8:17:55 PM
User: N/A
Computer: Windows
Description:
Error code 1000008e, parameter1 c0000005, parameter2 8057ea36, parameter3
f3b23c40, parameter4 00000000.
Event Type: Error
Event Source: System Error
Event Category: (102)
Event ID: 1003
Date: 2009-07-07
Time: 9:45:17 PM
User: N/A
Computer: Windows
Description:
Error code 1000008e, parameter1 c0000005, parameter2 bf835e1a, parameter3
f34dfbfc, parameter4 00000000.
Error code 1000007f, parameter1 00000008, parameter2 f7ac7d70, parameter3
00000000, parameter4 00000000.
Error code 1000008e, parameter1 c0000005, parameter2 bf835e1a, parameter3
f3123bfc, parameter4 00000000.
John Doe
If you are going to quote the eternal idiot "westom", please do it
more carefully. Thanks.
Paul
1000008e, parameter1 c0000005
Bug Check 0x8E: KERNEL_MODE_EXCEPTION_NOT_HANDLED
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-gb/library/ms794023.aspx
0xC0000005: STATUS_ACCESS_VIOLATION indicates that a
memory access violation occurred.
That means some code tried to access memory which was not set
up for that type of access. That is a safety feature. A possible
source of insanity is bad memory -- or malware.
1000007f, parameter1 00000008
Bug Check 0x7F: UNEXPECTED_KERNEL_MODE_TRAP
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-gb/library/ms795478.aspx
0x00000008, or Double Fault, indicates that an exception occurs during a
call to the handler for a prior exception. Typically, the
two exceptions are handled serially. However, there are several
exceptions that cannot be handled serially, and in this situation
the processor signals a double fault. There are two common
causes of a double fault:
* A kernel stack overflow.
* A hardware problem.
*******
At the very least, I'd start with memtest86+, for at least a couple
full passes. Test 5 is where you may see errors reported.
Keep logging errors, in the hopes that a driver name pops up.
If it isn't a memory problem, you're going to need all the
logging information you can gather.
One reason memtest86+ is good, is because of the percentage
of coverage. Memtest86+ cannot test BIOS reserved areas, so
there could be about 1MB worth of locations that cannot be
tested. Not everything the BIOS reserves, is used for something.
Other testing methods, give much poorer coverage. Running
Prime95 is a better test, from the degree of stress it
creates, but it lacks good coverage, and cannot test all
the memory. And in this situation, where the kernel is
reporting errors, Prime95 cannot grab memory that the
kernel is using. Memtest86+ can, because Windows is
not running when you're using a Memtest86+ floppy or
CD.
You can get Prime95 from here. p95v259.zip, Runs
a test thread per core. Tests 1600MB of my 2GB of
memory. You don't need to "join GIMPS" to use it.
I find this very good for general computer stability,
Vcore problems or marginal power supply. I may play
a 3D game at the same time, to add an additional test case.
I've had systems that are Prime95 stable, but adding the
game causes errors to show up and one of the Prime
threads gets an error.
http://www.mersenne.org/freesoft/
Paul
John Doe
You do know how to snip garbage, Paul?
Frustrated
::
:: http://aumha.org/a/stop.htm
Paul, thanks. I'll download memtest86+. I've used Prime95 before on this
machine and no anomolies were reported.
Any suggestions on a 3D game to run at the same time? Or perhaps run
bittorrent at the same time? I know bittorrent is really resource
intensive.
John Doe, is this better? ;)
westom
> Paul, thanks. I'll download memtest86+. I've used Prime95 before on this
> machine and no anomolies were reported.
One error code says a memory fault occurred probably in that used by
the OS. Failed memory address was bf835e1a. That may be a defective
location or where the error was detected when created by some other
defect. Second error implies the failure involves device drivers.
Your errors would come from a recently loaded and defective driver
(or other OS software), a bad memory location, power supply voltages
that are defective but can still run the machine, or other hardware
that is slowly failing, will only fail today when warmer, and will get
worse in the future.
AC power has no influence to the failure (which is why one wastes no
time posting insults).
You must confirm voltages are OK when system is under a maximum load
- from any one orange, yellow, red, and purple wire. Most important
would be the number from orange. Posting those numbers here may
provide further information you did not realize.
Memtst86 is another powerful. First execute in room temperature.
Then reexecuted at high temperatures that you do not like, but
computers love - such as a room at 100 degree F or by selective
heating with a hair dryer on highest heat settings. Heat is a
diagnostic tool. Selectively test by heating each memory board. And
by heating interface semiconductors such as the nearby Northbridge (a
large motherboard IC).
Common is for defective semiconductors to work at room temperature
but fail at 100 degrees. all seminconductors work perfecty happy at
temperatures you find uncomfortable.
Those three diagnostic information should result in useful
conclusions: heat, multimeter readings, and Memtst86.
westom
> My notes show me that over the years there have been numerous
> times where reseating fixed the problem permanently. I personally
> believe that it should be one of the first things you should try when
> you encounter flakey hardware problems.
We hit it with a hammer, and that also permenantly fixed it. We see
this often among those who know but did not first learn why.
Just because changing makes a temporary fix does not prove
anything. If the connector was not seated properly, then reseating
would fix it. But if the connection is fully seated, and reseating
fixed the connection, then the defect still exists - a symptom has
been cured.
Only because a fix was observed means nothing. We who fix things
the first time use well proven concepts to know why it fixes it.
Connectors are self cleaning when reseated. If minor electrical
changes in a connector causes failure, then the electronic circuit has
a defect. Instead the ill informed *know* the connector was fixed -
ignore the actual problem. Traditionally, that real defect only gets
worse with age. Reseating connectors is how to cure symptoms.
Those who know without learning why will know reseating connectors
work when curing symptoms is sufficient. If reseating the connector
elminates failure, a defect remains unsolved.
John Doe
> "Charlie" <charlieD...@verEYEzon.net> wrote:
>> �My notes show me that over the years there have been numerous
>> times where reseating fixed the problem permanently. �I
>> personally believe that it should be one of the first things
>> you should try when you encounter flakey hardware problems.
>
> We hit it with a hammer
Someone hit your head with a hammer, Tom.
--
Google is the spammer's gateway to USENET...
Google has destroyed access to the USENET archive...
...down with Google
John Doe
Do not believe anything this idiot writes.
westom <westom1 gmail.com> wrote:
> Path: news.astraweb.com!border1.newsrouter.astraweb.com!feed.news.qwest.net!mpls-nntp-04.inet.qwest.net!216.196.98.141.MISMATCH!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!26g2000yqk.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
> From: westom <westom1 gmail.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
> Subject: Re: Do I need a new power supply? (Error codes here)
> Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 08:35:35 -0700 (PDT)
> Organization: http://groups.google.com
> Lines: 38
> Message-ID: <ee72dd9f-ef25-48fe-b3fe-a91f9635b917 26g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>
> References: <hBA1m.17545$KQ4.9668 newsfe18.iad> <h26pdd$q6l$1 news.eternal-september.org> <1pE1m.1091$Vr2.243 newsfe21.iad> <1eb9cb4b-10d3-499f-861c-f2da56bdf77c n30g2000vba.googlegroups.com> <TP2bm.39173$0e4.27531 newsfe19.iad> <h4im61$evd$1 news.eternal-september.org> <ktbbm.37881$vp.12811 newsfe12.iad>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.254.55.144
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> X-Trace: posting.google.com 1248708935 2533 127.0.0.1 (27 Jul 2009 15:35:35 GMT)
> X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse google.com
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 15:35:35 +0000 (UTC)
> Complaints-To: groups-abuse google.com
> Injection-Info: 26g2000yqk.googlegroups.com; posting-host=71.254.55.144; posting-account=s0TWQwkAAABF0w4hiDH6XGaa8DHFtAwv
> User-Agent: G2/1.0
> X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 3.0.04506.648; .NET CLR 3.5.21022; OfficeLiveConnector.1.3; OfficeLivePatch.0.0; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
> Bytes: 3472
--
Frustrated
:One error code says a memory fault occurred probably in that used by
Considering I also get frequent BSODs with Windows 7 and have within a few
days of installing, would it be safe to say this is likely a hardware
problem?
How do I confirm the voltages are OK, especially from the orange wire?
Frustrated
:: To the unaware reader...
:: Do not believe anything this idiot writes.
Why?
westom
> Considering I also get frequent BSODs with Windows 7 and have within a few
> days of installing, would it be safe to say this is likely a hardware
> problem?
> How do I confirm the voltages are OK, especially from the orange wire?
Those BSOD errors limited the problem down to certain suspects (such
as Paul posted).
Using a 3.5 digit multimeter to measure that orange wire voltage (as
well as any one purple, red, and yellow wires). Simply set the meter
to 20 VDC. Touch wires. Read numbers. Then I have facts that result
in a useful reply.
Voltages are best measured when your machine is doing a much as
possible without crashing. For example, download from the internet,
while playing complex graphics (a movie), while searching the hard
drive, while playing a CD-Rom, etc. If unstable voltages are causing
your intermittent failure, then those numbers will expose that problem
- but only when computer is drawing a significant load.
As noted earlier, use Memtst86 also with semiconductors running hot
to humans (which is an ideal temperature to semiconductors). Memtst86
will not just report a failure. It will provide information to
isolate that problem to the memory or related motherboard hardware.
But first, something that define a failure must be found. Heat is a
diagnostic tool that often finds intermittents by temporarily making a
defect obvious.
Frustrated
: On Jul 28, 12:38 am, "Frustrated" <n...@none.com> wrote:
:
: Those BSOD errors limited the problem down to certain suspects (such
: as Paul posted).
:
: Using a 3.5 digit multimeter to measure that orange wire voltage (as
: well as any one purple, red, and yellow wires). Simply set the meter
: to 20 VDC. Touch wires. Read numbers. Then I have facts that result
: in a useful reply.
This may be a dumb question. But how could the voltages be measured just by
touching them when the wires are insulated?
Paul
To measure the voltage safely, do the following.
1) You need a multimeter, two test leads, and at least one alligator clip.
You place the alligator clip on the black lead, then snap the alligator
clip onto an I/O screw on the I/O panel on the back of the computer. This
ensures you don't get the tips of the probes too close together, and
short out the power supply. The chassis is grounded, and that is how
you'll be picking up ground.
2) Now, using the red test lead, with the meter set to 20V full scale or
a higher range, you push the test lead tip, into the back of the
main ATX power connector, where the wire goes into the plastic shell.
There is enough metal exposed in each nylon shell hole, for you to be
able to take a reading.
(slide the tip of the probe, next to where the wire goes in, in the right
most picture here. The wires are crimped to metal pins, and the metal will
be accessible on each one.)
http://www.playtool.com/pages/psuconnectors/main20pin.jpg
I don't know what you're trying to measure, but that is how to do it.
You can do that with the computer running. Since you've only got one
test lead in your hand, it is pretty difficult to get yourself into
trouble. Just make sure the red and black test leads are in the
"voltage holes" on the multimeter, and not the "current holes".
Paul
westom
> This may be a dumb question. But how could the voltages be measured just by
> touching them when the wires are insulated?
Obviously touching insulation is not touching the wire. Every wire is
perfectly exposed where it enters the white nylon connector. Simply
push the probe into the back of that connector to be touching the
wire.
Black wire is connected to meter chassis. Clip or attach black
meter probe to the chassis or to the black wire in any unused four
wire, disk drive power connector. Touch with the red meter probe each
wire where it is obviously exposed and available in the nylon
connector. Read numbers (or response when switch is pressed). Report
that here.
Paul has suggested a similar solution.
Frustrated
: Obviously touching insulation is not touching the wire. Every wire is
: perfectly exposed where it enters the white nylon connector. Simply
: push the probe into the back of that connector to be touching the
: wire.
Umm. What's the white nylon connector? Do you mean molex connector?
:
: Black wire is connected to meter chassis. Clip or attach black
: meter probe to the chassis or to the black wire in any unused four
: wire, disk drive power connector. Touch with the red meter probe each
: wire where it is obviously exposed and available in the nylon
: connector. Read numbers (or response when switch is pressed). Report
: that here.
What's a a meter chasis? Do you have any pics?
Frustrated
:: To measure the voltage safely, do the following.
::
:: 1) You need a multimeter, two test leads, and at least one alligator
:: clip. You place the alligator clip on the black lead, then snap
:: the alligator clip onto an I/O screw on the I/O panel on the back
:: of the computer. This ensures you don't get the tips of the
:: probes too close together, and short out the power supply. The
:: chassis is grounded, and that is how you'll be picking up ground.
I have leads but no aligator clips.
:: 2) Now, using the red test lead, with the meter set to 20V full
:: scale or a higher range, you push the test lead tip, into the
:: back of the main ATX power connector, where the wire goes into
:: the plastic shell. There is enough metal exposed in each nylon
:: shell hole, for you to be able to take a reading.
::
:: (slide the tip of the probe, next to where the wire goes in, in the
:: right most picture here. The wires are crimped to metal pins, and
:: he metal will be accessible on each one.)
::
:: http://www.playtool.com/pages/psuconnectors/main20pin.jpg
::
:: I don't know what you're trying to measure, but that is how to do it.
:: You can do that with the computer running. Since you've only got one
:: test lead in your hand, it is pretty difficult to get yourself into
:: trouble. Just make sure the red and black test leads are in the
:: "voltage holes" on the multimeter, and not the "current holes".
Thanks for the pic. However, I'm still confused. I am trying to measure
the orange wires like westom has suggested.
I don't get how I am going to get a full load reading when I disconnect the
ATX power connector and then insert the lead into it.
Paul
I guess I wasn't clear. Leave the ATX connector installed on the motherboard.
The computer can be running while you make a measurement, without a problem.
I've done this a few times, on my computers here.
When the connector is installed on the motherboard, you can see the white
nylon shell, and 20 wires coming up from it. Each wire goes into a square
hole. If you look down into that square hole, you can just barely see a
bit of exposed metal, from the pin which is crimped onto that wire. What
you want to do with your red multimeter test lead, is touch that metal
down in the hole.
Since there is a nice nylon square around each piece of metal, there
is no danger of a short circuit. Just stick the probe in the hole,
until you hit metal. Then your meter will show a reading. Make sure
the meter is set up to measure volts, and that you're using the holes
on the meter intended for voltage measurement.
If you don't have an alligator clip for your black test lead, find
some way to hold the test lead secure to some shiny conductive
grounded material on the computer. The reason I've suggested
this method, is to avoid you getting the two test leads close
together, as there is a danger you could short the tips together.
That is why I suggest placing the second test lead, out of
harm's way. Having to handle just the red test lead, is a lot
easier when making measurements.
Paul
westom
> What's a a meter chasis? Do you have any pics?
That was a typo. It should have read "touch the black lead to
chassis". Connection can be held with anything - even duct tape or
scotch tape - as long as the probe touches unpainted metal.
Don't worry about touching only the right thing. Most anything
exposed can be touched with that red probe and not cause damage.
(Disconnecting, removing, or touching hardware with a finger (static
electricity) puts electronics at greater risk.)
Do same measurement for the purple, any red, and any yellow wire.
All are easily exposed inside the white (sometimes it is a Molex)
connector. Read numbers when the computer is multitasking to (all
peripherals - maximize the load).
If confused, get any battery. Touch battery contacts to both meter
leads. Read battery voltage (which also reports how 'good' that
battery is). Measuring any battery voltage is similar to what is read
on the orange, purple, red, and yellow wires.
Mike Tomlinson
<no...@none.com> writes
>What's a a meter chasis?
There is no such thing. Tom is talking out of his arse as usual. Just
put him in your killfile, his "advice" is a total waste of time.