Re: Scratched CRT
From: Mac (foo_at_bar.net)
Date: 03/06/05
- Next message: Spehro Pefhany: "Re: OT: Shipping big stuff"
- Previous message: Rich Grise: "Re: Connector-- vocabulary breakdown."
- In reply to: Leo: "Re: Scratched CRT"
- Next in thread: Leo: "Re: Scratched CRT"
- Reply: Leo: "Re: Scratched CRT"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 06 Mar 2005 03:16:45 GMT
On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 12:10:15 -0800, Leo wrote:
> Ok, thanks to you both. So basically I shouldnīt worry about the
> scratch. Unless the CRT implodes, but I guess it would take far more
> than a simple scratch to happen.
>
> Also I read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathode_ray_tube (Under
> Health Danger) that this thick leaded glass protects from some X-rays
> that are emitted. But I guess that a scratch wouldnīt damage the
> protection, or would it ?
I don't think so, but I am not really qualified to answer the question.
Logically, I thing that the amount of X-ray protection is mainly a
function of the glass thickness, so if the scratch is not very deep, then
you don't need to worry about it.
> It also talks of toxic phosphors, it says an
> implosion OR other breaking of the glass could release the toxic
> phosphors. An scratch wouldnīt release the glass or would it ?
>
No. The phosphors are on the inside of the glass. As long as the glass is
intact, the phosphors should remain on the inside of the glass.
> Also when I referred to "protective glass" I meant the external that
> you buy and put in front of the screen, not the internal thick leaded
> glass. Iīm trying to make it more clear in case you didnīt take it
> into account.
>
That is what I understood.
> Iīm worrying about this because Iīm not going to replace the CRT in
> the near future, and I give it extensive use like 16 hours a day.
>
You must be a very hard worker. Or maybe just a computer junkie. ;)
> And Mac I donīt now what you meant by troll, I thought I had the whole
> troll thing clear because I`ve been reading through the group but then
> I mmight not have it clear.
>
The definition of a troll is somewhat controversial. My usual operating
definition is someone whose actual goal in posting is mainly to start long
fruitless discussions. Usually the troll is disingenuous, but that isn't a
prerequisite. For example, if you were to start a new thread in this
group and ask this question:
Why do people still do analog electronics when digital circuits are faster
and better at everything?
That would be a troll. Often trolling is most effective when it is more
subtle. If people realize that you are trolling, then they sometimes
ignore the question.
Another way to troll is to post inflammatory off-topic statements, for
example about politics. If the off-topic questions are clearly labeled and
in a thread by themselves, it isn't really a troll. But if you casually
work inflammatory material into otherwise on-topic posts, that is
a good way to troll.
> Thanks for all the help.
You are welcome.
;-)
- Next message: Spehro Pefhany: "Re: OT: Shipping big stuff"
- Previous message: Rich Grise: "Re: Connector-- vocabulary breakdown."
- In reply to: Leo: "Re: Scratched CRT"
- Next in thread: Leo: "Re: Scratched CRT"
- Reply: Leo: "Re: Scratched CRT"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
