Re: ti-92 died and wont come back to life !!
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
I personally wouldn't try putting the batteries in backwards. If you
read the manual for the calculator you will notice that if you press
and hold: [2nd+Lock(button that looks like a hand) then press on the
calculator will reset, if this dosen't work the manual says take out
one of the AA batteries then press [ ) + - ] and hold in for five
seconds while putting the batteries back in. See page 498 in your
calcs manual for the more detailed instructions.
On Mon, 25 Nov 1996 15:35:08 -0500, Jonathan Todd Samuel
<jsamuel+@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
>Excerpts from netnews.bit.listserv.calc-ti: 25-Nov-96 Re: ti-92 died and
>wont com.. by scott goehring@copper.uc
>>
>> while this may be true for TIs, it's not true generally. setting
>> aside things like the HCF (Halt and Catch Fire) instruction in the
>> 65xx series of processors, it is very easy to immolate a SVGA monitor
>> by misprogramming the controller. see alt.folklore.computers for
>> discussion of these sort of things.
>
>As I was writing in my last post that software usually can't hurt
>hardware, I thought about the two $950 17" monitors that blew up on me
>while I was using the tech support recommended video settings (from the
>huge mail order computer company whose name rhymes with "hell"), and I
>thought, "probably no one will challenge me on that statement, so I
>won't mention computer hardware fiascos like mine." You're right that
>PC's aren't too forgiving about things like plugging in HDDs the wrong
>way, and lots of other things.
>
> However, I still assert that if hardware is designed well it will
>protect itself from damage most of the time. My current 17" monitor from
>Micron Electronis (much better than *ell) just muted the signal when I
>was playing around with the video settings and hit one it couldn't
>handle. That's because to fry semiconductor stuff, you have to crank the
>voltage way up and get a lot of current flowing through the circuit. I
>had set the frequency too high, but the signal voltage from my video
>card hadn't changed so my monitor's electronis could just decide to
>ignore the signal. Depending on how good my monitor is, it may be that
>it cannot be damaged unless I do something like use a power amp to put
>hundreds of volts across the video-in pins. Then all bets are off. But
>no matter how much you tweak the video card, you shouldn't be able to
>make it crank up its signal voltage, so the monitor should always be
>able to decide if it likes the video signal or not.
>
>Note: Don't try increasing the refresh or whatever with a 14" monitor;
>most of them have no protecting circuitry and will spontaneously
>combust. In fact, don't play with video settings ever unless you figure
>that destroying something is a good learning experience :-)
>
>Oh, and getting to the point: unless the engineers at TI screwed up
>royally when they designed the 92, they shouldn't break unless you step
>on 'em or drop them in a bathtub. So don't panic when fargo locks them
>up. Just take out the batteries. (In fact, if you're feeling lucky you
>can try to bring your 92 back to life faster by putting all the
>batteries in _backwards_ and turning it on. This _shouldn't_ hurt the
>calculator in theory, bacause transistors/diodes/capacitors can usually
>withstand 6v applied the wrong way. I don't recommend that anyone do
>this but if I had a locked up 92 I'd try it)
>
>-Jonathan
>
>
>
>+-----------------------------------------------+
>| Jonathan Samuel jsamuel+@andrew.cmu.edu |
>| Electrical and Computer Engineering Student |
>| at Carnegie Mellon University |
>| http://jsamuel.res.cmu.edu/~jsamuel -or- |
>| http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/usr/jsamuel |
>+-----------------------------------------------+
>
>
References: