|
Well I guessing the charger like most modern phone charger would be a switch mode rather than a linear meaning it would fail safe, even so the phone should be insulated against that. Am I alone in thinking Thailand, no shirt, dodgy going on 
|
|
|
|
|
Most cheap chargers are a barely-regulated transformer rather than the cost of a switch mode design. Think about it: a transformer, a couple of cheap caps and a few diodes: stick it in a box and "ship it Danno"!
If it fails, the company has probably changed name by then anyway.
(Some of the really nasty ones don't even bother with a PCB...  )
|
|
|
|
|
I was going buy the chargers I had seen/open up when they stopped working for friends (most Motorla, and a Nokia I think) also the charger for my S3 I doubt you could get anything more than an isolation transformer and a regulator...
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: If it fails, the company has probably changed name by then anyway.
Added "Cr" in front of its existing name, and truncated the last three characters, maybe?
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Technically, this way, the name remains the same.
Veni, vidi, vici.
|
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: Most cheap chargers are a barely-regulated transformer rather than the cost of a switch mode design. Think about it: a transformer, a couple of cheap caps and a few diodes: stick it in a box and "ship it Danno"!
I know that was the case years ago; but IIRC a few years back enough jurisdictions started pushing energy efficiency requirements that even at the very low power end that the simpler logistics of only having one model had largely resulted in global power ready (100-240V, 47-63hz) switched mode supplies becoming ubiquitous. I can't remember the last time I looked at a power brick that didn't have the extremely wide voltage range that requires a switched mode supply.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
Something else not reported was going on, DC volts are more dangerous that AC volt as it causes the suffocation. Suffice to say if I go there I will be taking an isolation transformer and a set of RCD's ![Java | [Coffee]](https://www.codeproject.com/script/Forums/Images/coffee.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
It only takes a couple of milliamps of current to kill, Bill. Ordinarily we're protected by skin, which has an impedance of 1 to 3 kohm, but on a hot day, shirtless, probably sweating, the impedance is much less. Even so, the current path through the body has to be just right, crossing the heart on the way to earth, in order to cause the heart to fail. A source of failure that seems probable is the transformer in the charger. AC power transformers are all iron-cored, for efficiency, and both windings are wrapped on the same core. Poor insulation on the wires might have caused a connection from the mains to the core, which in turn could heat the iron core enough to melt the secondary winding's insulation, causing it to be energized at the mains voltage. This, applied to the phone through a circuit intended to handle just a few volts would be certain to cause damage, and quite possibly enough to expose the holder of the phone to mains voltage. It wouldn't last long, as the tiny charger wire would fail fairly quickly, but it could easily produce enough current through the chest to stop a heart.
Will Rogers never met me.
|
|
|
|
|
Amazing what some people know in their fields, your explanation almost makes me think some of that CSI sh*t may actually be real, but then I remember McGiver.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
Hmmm,
I am using Vis Studio 2008 at work, and I think an upgrade is in order soon. Not being a software house the latest greatest is not really needed (and can cause problems) I was looking at 2010 when I was told by a friend that it had bugs in it, don't use it! so is bug ridden? have M$ released a 'fix' or has it been swept under the rug (with the buy 2013)?
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you Glenn, I really needed a laugh this morning! 
Microsoft fix bugs? Nah...they just paper a new layer of UI over the top and hope you won't notice!
2010 has a few bugs - as did 2008 - but overall it's OK. You have to tread carefully sometimes (particularly when you start using abstract base classes for UserControls) but it's been pretty reliable so far. Generally the problems are teh same in 2008 and 2010. I haven't moved up to 2012 yet, as I haven't needed any of it's features (or want the monochrome SHOUTY look everyone complained about) and don't want to spend the money on something I wont be using yet. Probably, I'll skip 2012 completely and go to 2013 once the SP1 service patch is released (you know: the first non-beta version). It probably won't be long - there will be enough critical errors they have to bodge round fix in teh first six months if experience is any guide...
|
|
|
|
|
Glad to be of service in the humour department. When I hear from the guy I heard that from is messing with data bases quite a bit. So the advice is stick with what you know, I can live with that. 
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah. We're too still running VS2010 on Windows 7 currently. However I've heard of plans of ugrading to Windows 8.1 and VS2013 during the next year 
I think VS2010 is a good deal better than 2008 was. However you can't expect it to be without bugs. On of the most annoying features probably that the ASPX designer quickly runs out of memory and stops working when starting the debugger a few times (everything works fine exept the Design view of the aspx which I didn't need that much anyway...)
|
|
|
|
|
Really it was C# & serial port I was after...
|
|
|
|
|
Looks like you are using teh same dictionary as I often end up using... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
My limited experience with VS2010 told me to skip that version and wait for VS2012 which is a lot better (performance wise).
(I just wish we could goto VS2013 instead, but are limited by 3rd party libraries).
I'd rather be phishing!
|
|
|
|
|
If it ain't broke, don't replace it.
Whether or not you'll encounter bugs depends on what you do with it.
I use 2010 at home and never had any trouble with it. At work I do a lot of SSIS, and encountered problems in 2008, 2010, and 2012; that's just the nature of the beast.
|
|
|
|
|
I use VS2010 for C# development at home and it works well. However, I'm limited to .NET 4.
/ravi
|
|
|
|
|
That is reassuring, I only tend to write stuff to interface to hardware in C# not really much else! 
|
|
|
|
|
I upgraded from VS2008 to VS2010 a long time ago and haven't regretted it for a moment. I tried VS2012 when it came out and removed it from my system in short order. I will stick with VS2010 as long as possible and then probably go to VS2017 or whatever it is called, if necessary. I expect to be using VS2010 for a long time yet. For what I do, it just works, mostly.
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
|
|
|
|
|
We have been on 2010 for some time and I manage to crash it every couple of days, I have to reboot at least every day otherwise the systems grinds to a halt. This is probably due to VS negotiating with every AV product known to man that is inflicted on my system .
I find 2012 dramatically faster when starting up and 2013 about the same which may be due to better AV handling 
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
Cicada[^]
---------------------------------
Obscurum per obscurius.
Ad astra per alas porci.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur .
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
