AOA Forums AOA Forums AOA Forums Folding For Team 45 AOA Files Home Front Page Become an AOA Subscriber! UserCP Calendar Memberlist FAQ Search Forum Home


Go Back   AOA Forums > Hardware > Case Modifications


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 2 votes, 5.00 average.
  #21 (permalink)  
Old 11th June, 2005, 07:57 PM
GrahamGarside's Avatar
Member/Contributer
 
Join Date: September 2004
Location: England
Posts: 4,572

I'd be careful about announcing you have aquired uranium on a public forum, it takes far less to make the axis of evil these days
__________________
"Well yes but I'm afraid I prematurely shot my wod on what was supposed to be a dry run if you will, so now I'm afraid I have something of a mess on my hands."

Tobias Fünke, M.D.

AOA Team fah
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #22 (permalink)  
Old 11th June, 2005, 08:07 PM
Daniel ~'s Avatar
Chief BBS Administrator
 
Join Date: September 2001
Location: Seattle Wa.
Posts: 45,605

And even less to fight one! LOL
__________________
"Though all men live in ignorance before mystery,
they need not live in darkness...
Justice is foundation and Mercy ETERNAL
."
DKE

"All that we do is touched by Ocean
Yet we remain on the shore of what we know."
Richard Wilbur

[img]/forum/attachments/random-nonsense/16515-sigs-dan_drag.jpg[/img]
Subscribers! Ask Pitch about a Custom Sig Graphic

Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old 11th June, 2005, 08:32 PM
Member
 
Join Date: January 2005
Location: Brighton
Posts: 4,856

If the UV in cathode ray tubed was harmful, they wouldn't be selling it to you I'm sure.
Photons are not particles in their own right, they are electrons oscillating in the outer shells of atoms. That's what my physics teacher told me. I did my 3 hour Physics AS exam on Friday, it went really well and only on the questions about the Rutherford experiement did a few myth me!
__________________


Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolf2000me
Skinny people are not petite in every aspect of the body, let me tell you that
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsio
I was searching for a synonym for testicles that rhymed with hats


[/FONT]


Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old 11th June, 2005, 08:46 PM
Gizmo's Avatar
Chief BBS Administrator
BassTeroids Champion, Global Player Champion, Aim & Fire Champion, Puzzle Maniax Champion, Othello Champion, Canyon Glider Champion, Unicycle Challenge Champion, YetiSports 9: Final Spit Champion, Zed Champion
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Webb City, Mo
Posts: 16,178
Send a message via ICQ to Gizmo Send a message via AIM to Gizmo Send a message via MSN to Gizmo Send a message via Yahoo to Gizmo Send a message via Skype™ to Gizmo

CRTs don't radiate any significant amount of UV that I am aware of. They DO have the potential to generate soft X-Rays, though. That's the main reason the front of a CRT is made of leaded glass that is over an inch thick (well, that and to keep stupid people from putting their hands through the front of the tube).

DHHS guidelines require that ALL equipment driving CRTs be designed with intrinsic safety features to ensure that the CRT cannot ever be driven hard enough to generate significant amounts of X-Rays. I used to be responsible for ensuring product compliance with the applicable safety regulations in a former lifetime when I worked for a monitor manufacturer. One of my duties was to take a random sampling of production units for each product family and test them to ensure compliance. We built products for Corner Stone Imaging, Radius, Tek, Rockwell, Sun, and Xerox among others.

Basically, the only way a CRT is going to generate X-Rays is if the anode voltage gets high enough that the electrons from the gun get accelerated to a high enough velocity that they produce X-Rays when they hit the phosphors. So, the simple way to test for this condition is to adjust the unit to produce the maximum possible anode voltage under normal conditions, take your measurements with a radiation meter, and then completely disable the anode voltage regulation circuitry (let the voltage regulator run as high as it possibly can) and measure it again.

Because our monitors were designed for high-performance applications (very high resolution with very good focus), we actually had to get very close to the legal limit for X-Rays, and if the regulator circuit pulled out of regulation, it was possible to exceed the limit. So we had three independent fail-safe circuits that could each shut down the monitor if they detected an overvoltage condition.

Most normal consumer products are designed so that it is not even POSSIBLE for them to produce the voltages necessary to produce X-Rays, so the testing is much simpler (and cheaper).
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #25 (permalink)  
Old 11th June, 2005, 09:26 PM
Daniel ~'s Avatar
Chief BBS Administrator
 
Join Date: September 2001
Location: Seattle Wa.
Posts: 45,605

I'm reassured...a bit":O}
__________________
"Though all men live in ignorance before mystery,
they need not live in darkness...
Justice is foundation and Mercy ETERNAL
."
DKE

"All that we do is touched by Ocean
Yet we remain on the shore of what we know."
Richard Wilbur

[img]/forum/attachments/random-nonsense/16515-sigs-dan_drag.jpg[/img]
Subscribers! Ask Pitch about a Custom Sig Graphic

Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #26 (permalink)  
Old 11th June, 2005, 09:47 PM
GrahamGarside's Avatar
Member/Contributer
 
Join Date: September 2004
Location: England
Posts: 4,572

Basically you want a nice TCO99 aproved monitor, TCO95 shields the screen, but leaves the sides unshielded I believe, so don't go sitting any pregnant friends near them
__________________
"Well yes but I'm afraid I prematurely shot my wod on what was supposed to be a dry run if you will, so now I'm afraid I have something of a mess on my hands."

Tobias Fünke, M.D.

AOA Team fah
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #27 (permalink)  
Old 11th June, 2005, 10:39 PM
Rondog's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: January 2005
Location: Victoria, Australia
Posts: 3,298
Send a message via MSN to Rondog

I sit in front of an LCD. I dont care.
__________________
AOA Team fah

Rig 1: Intel Core i5 750,4gb,HD6870,500gb,W7 Ult x64
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #28 (permalink)  
Old 11th June, 2005, 11:54 PM
GrahamGarside's Avatar
Member/Contributer
 
Join Date: September 2004
Location: England
Posts: 4,572

LCD's don't give off any emitions to be concerned about, basically just light.
__________________
"Well yes but I'm afraid I prematurely shot my wod on what was supposed to be a dry run if you will, so now I'm afraid I have something of a mess on my hands."

Tobias Fünke, M.D.

AOA Team fah
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #29 (permalink)  
Old 12th June, 2005, 12:37 AM
Gizmo's Avatar
Chief BBS Administrator
BassTeroids Champion, Global Player Champion, Aim & Fire Champion, Puzzle Maniax Champion, Othello Champion, Canyon Glider Champion, Unicycle Challenge Champion, YetiSports 9: Final Spit Champion, Zed Champion
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Webb City, Mo
Posts: 16,178
Send a message via ICQ to Gizmo Send a message via AIM to Gizmo Send a message via MSN to Gizmo Send a message via Yahoo to Gizmo Send a message via Skype™ to Gizmo

Quote:
Originally Posted by GrahamGarside
Basically you want a nice TCO99 aproved monitor, TCO95 shields the screen, but leaves the sides unshielded I believe, so don't go sitting any pregnant friends near them
Different problem. Monitors have an integrated shield around the picture tube for the purpose of blocking X-Rays, and have had for ages. What TCO95 and TCO99 did was require that the monitors reduce the emission of the magnetic fields generated by the deflection yoke to ensure that it is not of any significant strength outside the monitor chassis. Since magnetic fields are quite pervasive and the currents in the deflection yoke are rather large (as much as 20 amps for the horizontal field), such shielding is both difficult and expensive, especially for the low-frequency vertical deflection field. You would be AMAZED at how difficult it is to block 60 Hz magnetic fields.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #30 (permalink)  
Old 12th June, 2005, 09:33 AM
Kaitain's Avatar
Member
Mars Rover Champion, Joust Champion
 
Join Date: September 2001
Location: MK10, UK.
Posts: 4,372
Send a message via MSN to Kaitain Send a message via Skype™ to Kaitain

Quote:
Originally Posted by Áedán
UVC is the one you really want to avoid, but doesn't make it to the Earth. You're unlikely to have any device that generates much of this. UVB has definately been linked to skin cancer, but there's also a body of evidence that suggests that UVA is not without blame either.

In terms of damage to skin, unless you're noticing you're picking up a tan from your UV, then it's not such a big issue. However, it's not good to look directly at a UV source, as it can cause damage to cornea and the conjunctiva. UVA is known to cause inflamation of these parts of the eye.
UVA is definitely not without blame. This is the band that is used in so-called "safe" sunbeds that is responsible for all those UV-band photographs of pretty young women with ruined faces. All UV causes harm if misused.

It's just due to frequency - UVA is the lowest frequency, so lowest energy. UVB is next up, UVC is "far UV" - at the top end of that band, the distinction between UV and X ray gets lost.

It's down to intensity though. You little cold cathode UV sources should be "soft-UV", which is UVA very close to the visible light band. Some UV sources even glow a pleasing shade of purple. These probably only put out a few hundred milliwatts, which is not enough to cause problems.

About 20 or 25 years ago, certain office workers complained of cataracts, ruined eyesight and a healthy facial tan despite never leaving the office. Monitors have improved somewhat since then...
__________________
It is by coffee alone I set my mind in motion...
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #31 (permalink)  
Old 12th June, 2005, 10:10 AM
Rondog's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: January 2005
Location: Victoria, Australia
Posts: 3,298
Send a message via MSN to Rondog

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaitain
UVA is definitely not without blame. This is the band that is used in so-called "safe" sunbeds that is responsible for all those UV-band photographs of pretty young women with ruined faces. All UV causes harm if misused.

It's just due to frequency - UVA is the lowest frequency, so lowest energy. UVB is next up, UVC is "far UV" - at the top end of that band, the distinction between UV and X ray gets lost.

It's down to intensity though. You little cold cathode UV sources should be "soft-UV", which is UVA very close to the visible light band. Some UV sources even glow a pleasing shade of purple. These probably only put out a few hundred milliwatts, which is not enough to cause problems.

About 20 or 25 years ago, certain office workers complained of cataracts, ruined eyesight and a healthy facial tan despite never leaving the office. Monitors have improved somewhat since then...
My UV cathode's make glow purple.
__________________
AOA Team fah

Rig 1: Intel Core i5 750,4gb,HD6870,500gb,W7 Ult x64
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #32 (permalink)  
Old 12th June, 2005, 06:45 PM
Gizmo's Avatar
Chief BBS Administrator
BassTeroids Champion, Global Player Champion, Aim & Fire Champion, Puzzle Maniax Champion, Othello Champion, Canyon Glider Champion, Unicycle Challenge Champion, YetiSports 9: Final Spit Champion, Zed Champion
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Webb City, Mo
Posts: 16,178
Send a message via ICQ to Gizmo Send a message via AIM to Gizmo Send a message via MSN to Gizmo Send a message via Yahoo to Gizmo Send a message via Skype™ to Gizmo

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaitain
About 20 or 25 years ago, certain office workers complained of cataracts, ruined eyesight and a healthy facial tan despite never leaving the office. Monitors have improved somewhat since then...
Was this ever substantiated? I never EVER had to test for UV emissions, despite testing to TC095 and TUV requirements (and TUV was hellish; if you could pass TUV, you could pass anything; indeed, most regulatory agencies in other countries would accept the TUV as sufficient proof of meeting their own regulatory requirements).
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #33 (permalink)  
Old 13th June, 2005, 04:05 PM
cloasters's Avatar
Asst. BBS Administrator
 
Join Date: September 2001
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 21,871

My $240 Geiger counter shows no evidence of me being radioactive. I wonder if I need a more expensive one?
__________________
When the world will be better.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #34 (permalink)  
Old 13th June, 2005, 04:37 PM
Member/Contributor/Resident Crystal Ball
 
Join Date: March 2004
Posts: 7,451

Quote:
Originally Posted by cloasters
My $240 Geiger counter shows no evidence of me being radioactive. I wonder if I need a more expensive one?




{insert punch line here}

__________________
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #35 (permalink)  
Old 3rd July, 2005, 11:40 PM
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4

you forgot rocks they are radioactive too :P
__________________
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #36 (permalink)  
Old 12th July, 2005, 07:38 PM
cloasters's Avatar
Asst. BBS Administrator
 
Join Date: September 2001
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 21,871

This is unbelieveable as well as tragic. A government paid scientist said that a small amount of ionizing radiation isn't bad for one's health recently. There is no threshold, any and all ionizing radiation harms living things. Yes, some is unavoidable. No, extra radiation does you no good.
Go --sh!
__________________
When the world will be better.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #37 (permalink)  
Old 13th July, 2005, 04:03 AM
Rondog's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: January 2005
Location: Victoria, Australia
Posts: 3,298
Send a message via MSN to Rondog

No radiation is good, but allegedly, the human body can withstand it for a short period of time. Im not sure, im not a biologist.
__________________
AOA Team fah

Rig 1: Intel Core i5 750,4gb,HD6870,500gb,W7 Ult x64
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #38 (permalink)  
Old 13th July, 2005, 06:18 AM
Gizmo's Avatar
Chief BBS Administrator
BassTeroids Champion, Global Player Champion, Aim & Fire Champion, Puzzle Maniax Champion, Othello Champion, Canyon Glider Champion, Unicycle Challenge Champion, YetiSports 9: Final Spit Champion, Zed Champion
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Webb City, Mo
Posts: 16,178
Send a message via ICQ to Gizmo Send a message via AIM to Gizmo Send a message via MSN to Gizmo Send a message via Yahoo to Gizmo Send a message via Skype™ to Gizmo

The human body can tolerate a certain amount of ionizing radiation without any appreciable change in condition, because of the healing mechanisms that we have. However, all radiation causes damage and eventually that damage adds up. It is suspected that background radiation is one of the contributing factors to aging, although probably a relatively minor one.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #39 (permalink)  
Old 13th July, 2005, 06:38 AM
Rondog's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: January 2005
Location: Victoria, Australia
Posts: 3,298
Send a message via MSN to Rondog

Quote:
Originally Posted by gizmo
The human body can tolerate a certain amount of ionizing radiation without any appreciable change in condition, because of the healing mechanisms that we have. However, all radiation causes damage and eventually that damage adds up. It is suspected that background radiation is one of the contributing factors to aging, although probably a relatively minor one.
And why people in remote parts of the world live longer.
__________________
AOA Team fah

Rig 1: Intel Core i5 750,4gb,HD6870,500gb,W7 Ult x64
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #40 (permalink)  
Old 13th July, 2005, 09:41 AM
Chief Systems Administrator
 
Join Date: September 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 13,075

Quote:
Originally Posted by cloasters
a small amount of ionizing radiation isn't bad for one's health recently. There is no threshold, any and all ionizing radiation harms living things. Yes, some is unavoidable. No, extra radiation does you no good.
Remember that most living things have always had to deal with a small amount of background radiation. As such, they are quite capable of dealing with it. Removal of all background radiation isn't possible, but I suspect if it were, it would lead to odd things happening.
__________________
Any views, thoughts and opinions are entirely my own. They don't necessarily represent those of my employer (BlackBerry).
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Reply



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
CCFL Pulse skool h8r Case Modifications 6 12th August, 2005 10:56 PM
Odd Vcore,VDD effects on 8RDA+ Lord Vetinari EPoX MotherBoards 13 31st March, 2003 10:24 PM
CCFL inverter chris4521 Case Modifications 7 28th March, 2003 12:40 AM
hover-effects :((( Brummelchen Forum Feedback and Suggestion Box 0 25th January, 2003 12:34 PM
Sunbeam's Multi-Color CCFL Jackie Leong Case Modifications 7 27th July, 2002 06:35 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:17 PM.


Copyright ©2001 - 2010, AOA Forums
Don't Click Here Don't Click Here Either

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0