repairing a switch mode plug pack

[Arfa Daily]

Arfa, I was replying to Ross Herbert, not the OP! Check out his post on
21/05/2006 at 03:33.

Dave

OK. However, you did say that " the OP has reached a dead end ... " and
Ross was not the OP. Hence my ' mistake ' ...

Arfa

 

[Tom MacIntyre]

The thread breakdown in my newsreader indicates otherwise...

Tom

Sorry Dave...I went back and followed the thing more closely, and I
see what you were referring to. Thanks.

Tom

 

[Dave D]

OK. However, you did say that " the OP has reached a dead end ... " and
Ross was not the OP. Hence my ' mistake ' ...

Arfa

Sorry, I did say that, you're right. My reply was to Ross Herbert's post and
I erroneously used the term 'OP'.

My apologies

Dave

 

[Dave D]

The thread breakdown in my newsreader indicates otherwise...

Tom

Are we talking about the same post? I'm referring to the one I posted at
17:41 on the 21st May. I replied to Ross, and even quoted his post, I don't
see how your newsreader is showing me replying to the OP. Even Arfa
acknowledged that I was replying to Ross when I pointed it out.

The only thing that could have caused confusion is that in a subsequent post
I erroneously referred to Ross as the OP.

Dave

 

[Dave D]

Sorry Dave...I went back and followed the thing more closely, and I
see what you were referring to. Thanks.

Tom

No worries Tom, ignore my other reply then ;-)

Sometimes Usenet drives me insane trying to follow threads, I often lose
track of who said what myself.

Dave

 

[Arfa Daily]

Sorry, I did say that, you're right. My reply was to Ross Herbert's post
and I erroneously used the term 'OP'.

My apologies

Dave

No sweat Dave, no apologies required. I often find that threads get screwed
when 95% of the posters are following the bottom posting convention, and the
odd 5% are top posting out of sequence ...

And now I'm off to jump on the big smoking metal bird, which is gonna take
me and mine to the sun for a week or so ...

Catch y'all when I get back d;~}

Arfa

 

[Ross Herbert]

Arfa, I was replying to Ross Herbert, not the OP! Check out his post on
21/05/2006 at 03:33.

Dave

Hi Dave, yes I will do the cap swap next. I know the electro's are ok
because I checked not only value and ESR, but also Q. From
correspondence with the OP he found the 100nF cap (Ct) at pin 4 of the
3842 was "leaky". The problem may be due to the fact that most of the
caps around the IC are 50V monolithic ceramics, including Ct, and
while the voltage rating would seem to be adequate, I would feel
better if they were 100V MKT film. So that is what I plan to do.