🚀 go-pugleaf

Andy Mabbett wrote:
> 
> A friend needs a new 17" monitor (TFT/ flat screen is not wanted); I've
> managed to persuade them not to go into PC World and buy whatever is
> cheapest, but am at loss to give further advice.
> 
> What are the thing s to look for, and avoid? What on-line retailers are
> worth considering?

Can't go wrong with Iiyama IMO. They do a rather nice 17" unit. The model
number escapes me.... Have a look at their website.

-- 
Richard Howlett

mailto:richard@howie.org.uk

Have a look on the net for some reviews to narrow it down to a few
models.......maybe go to PCWorld or other showroom if they list the
models so you can see it close up and personal.
As for where to buy from...depends a lot on price and shipping
cost....you may get a local oem place that has them for less than the
cheapest online place + shipping.

In article <3c64e25b.1311955@news.freeserve.net>, on Sat, 9 Feb 2002, 
Conrad Edwards <conrad@niuska.fsnet.co.uk.nospam> wrote
>Have a look on the net for some reviews to narrow it down to a few
>models.......maybe go to PCWorld or other showroom if they list the
>models so you can see it close up and personal.
>As for where to buy from...depends a lot on price and shipping
>cost....you may get a local oem place that has them for less than the
>cheapest online place + shipping.

Don't forget to look at second-hand too.

(I may miss newsgroup followups, though I try not to; I _do_ read email
though.)
[* Send to G6JPG@soft255 - not nospam - if I'm posting or replying to a post.
*]
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for thoughts on PCs. **

Anytime you want to know more about ancient S American testicles, just ask.
[nick@nandj.freeserve.co.uk (Nick Atty), in UMRA, Thu, 19 Aug 1999 18:46:55
GMT]

On Fri, 29 Mar 2002 23:31:56 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
<junk@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>In article <3c64e25b.1311955@news.freeserve.net>, on Sat, 9 Feb 2002, 
>Conrad Edwards <conrad@niuska.fsnet.co.uk.nospam> wrote
>>Have a look on the net for some reviews to narrow it down to a few
>>models.......maybe go to PCWorld or other showroom if they list the
>>models so you can see it close up and personal.
>>As for where to buy from...depends a lot on price and shipping
>>cost....you may get a local oem place that has them for less than the
>>cheapest online place + shipping.
>
>Don't forget to look at second-hand too.

Yes, and if you can afford it go for an low-radiation LCD type.

Amazing the amount of desk space you save!

-- 
J+

In article <3ca9d811.1727036@news.freeserve.net>, ---
<marula31@hootmail.com> writes

>Yes, and if you can afford it go for an low-radiation LCD type.
                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
How can an Liquid Crystal Display type be low radation, or even high
radiation? Radiation applies only to Cathode Ray Tube types

On Wed, 3 Apr 2002 08:14:31 +0100, John Chapple <jc@ch-w.demon.co.uk>
wrote:

>In article <3ca9d811.1727036@news.freeserve.net>, ---
><marula31@hootmail.com> writes
>
>>Yes, and if you can afford it go for an low-radiation LCD type.
>                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>How can an Liquid Crystal Display type be low radation, or even high
>radiation? Radiation applies only to Cathode Ray Tube types

They can still radiate nasties. If not electromagnetic radiation,
then some sort of ionisation.

Apple is having problems in this respect, or so I'm told.

The last one I bought has a 'TCO 99' sticker, which is
supposed to guarantee the thing against throwing out nasties.

-- 
J+

marula31@hootmail.com (---) wrote:

>On Wed, 3 Apr 2002 08:14:31 +0100, John Chapple <jc@ch-w.demon.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>How can an Liquid Crystal Display type be low radation, or even high
>>radiation? Radiation applies only to Cathode Ray Tube types
>
>They can still radiate nasties. If not electromagnetic radiation,
>then some sort of ionisation.
>
>Apple is having problems in this respect, or so I'm told.
>
>The last one I bought has a 'TCO 99' sticker, which is
>supposed to guarantee the thing against throwing out nasties.

Firstly, it's worth pointing out that visible light *IS*
electromagnetic radiation.

Secondly, LCD displays get their brightness by means of illumination
with miniature cold cathode fluorescent light tubes placed at the
sides of the LCD panel.  The fluorescent light is diffused across the
screen by inclusion of a diffusion screen behind the LCD panel.  The
LCD panel itself emits nothing, although some LCD technologies use a
very small magnetic field within the panel.  It's just a mechanism for
filtering the transmission of light.

The stories about "nasties" with LCD's seems to relate to the fact
that some people don't seem to get on too well with fluorescent light.
This problem isn't specific to LCD displays; some people claim to get
headaches when working under fluorescent lights.  The reason why isn't
clear although there has been some surmise that it might be due to the
fact that fluorescent lights flicker at a rate of 100 hertz.  However,
the problem may be more to do with bad workplace design rather than
with the type of lighting.

I wouldn't mind betting that the story about Apple displays is just
marketing FUD created by one of Apple's competitors.  It's also very
easy to get TCO 99 certification for a device which doesn't emit any
radiation at wavelengths that are usually considered harmful (eg
X-rays, UVC and microwaves).  I rather suspect that you would be very
hard pressed to find an LCD PC display which hasn't been certified to
TCO 99.
-- 
Mike Humberston
unbar email address to reply.

Re monitors and radiation:

A CRT colour monitor is a device in which an electron beam generated 
by a potential difference of around 25000V (25kV) hits a target and 
knocks photons off it. The target is optimised to produce photons in 
the visible spectrum.

An X-ray machine is a device in which an electron beam generated 
by a potential difference of over 25000V (25kV) hits a target and 
knocks photons off it in the X-ray (high-energy) spectrum.

A bit oversimplified, but there's not a lot of difference. Electrons 
that hit the wrong target, and a voltage which exceeds the specified 
value (I've known a particular model which went 67% over specified 
voltage in case of a cheap capacitor going high-resistance) make a 
(rather inefficient) X-ray machine.

Voltages in LCD monitors are orders of magnitude below 25kV, and 
utterly incapable og generating a measurable amount of high-energy 
photons.

HT Reassures,
-- 
Michael Salem

On Sat, 06 Apr 2002 18:39:00 +0100, mike-barred@philomel.demon.co.uk
(Mike) wrote some or all of:

>Firstly, it's worth pointing out that visible light *IS*
>electromagnetic radiation.

good point!
>
>Secondly, LCD displays get their brightness by means of illumination
>with miniature cold cathode fluorescent light tubes placed at the
>sides of the LCD panel.  The fluorescent light is diffused across the
>screen by inclusion of a diffusion screen behind the LCD panel.  The
>LCD panel itself emits nothing, although some LCD technologies use a
>very small magnetic field within the panel.  It's just a mechanism for
>filtering the transmission of light.
>
How does the magnetic field work? The only magnetic field I can think
of is the stray magnetic field from the inverter circuit's
transformer, used to step the voltage up to maybe 10KV. High frequency
AC voltages of that order can burn neat little holes in your skin if
you're careless with a live, dismantled screen. (Ouch!)

Where I used to work, we always saved the little fluorescent tubes to
repair other screens (in laptops). They're virtually unobtainable and
consequently very expensive.

regards Dave.
1173 free hi-res photos especially Edinburgh,
Scotland. Quick navigation, plug-ins not needed.
No banner adverts!    http://www.henniker.org.uk

Dave writes
>Where I used to work, we always saved the little fluorescent tubes to
>repair other screens (in laptops). They're virtually unobtainable and
>consequently very expensive.

A pity, unless anyone else knows otherwise ....

-- 
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.

On Sat, 06 Apr 2002 18:39:00 +0100, mike-barred@philomel.demon.co.uk
(Mike) wrote:

>marula31@hootmail.com (---) wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 3 Apr 2002 08:14:31 +0100, John Chapple <jc@ch-w.demon.co.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>How can an Liquid Crystal Display type be low radation, or even high
>>>radiation? Radiation applies only to Cathode Ray Tube types
>>
>>They can still radiate nasties. If not electromagnetic radiation,
>>then some sort of ionisation.
>>
>>Apple is having problems in this respect, or so I'm told.
>>
>>The last one I bought has a 'TCO 99' sticker, which is
>>supposed to guarantee the thing against throwing out nasties.
>
>Firstly, it's worth pointing out that visible light *IS*
>electromagnetic radiation.
>
>Secondly, LCD displays get their brightness by means of illumination
>with miniature cold cathode fluorescent light tubes placed at the
>sides of the LCD panel.  The fluorescent light is diffused across the
>screen by inclusion of a diffusion screen behind the LCD panel.  The
>LCD panel itself emits nothing, although some LCD technologies use a
>very small magnetic field within the panel.  It's just a mechanism for
>filtering the transmission of light.
>
>The stories about "nasties" with LCD's seems to relate to the fact
>that some people don't seem to get on too well with fluorescent light.
>This problem isn't specific to LCD displays; some people claim to get
>headaches when working under fluorescent lights.  The reason why isn't
>clear although there has been some surmise that it might be due to the
>fact that fluorescent lights flicker at a rate of 100 hertz.  However,
>the problem may be more to do with bad workplace design rather than
>with the type of lighting.
>
>I wouldn't mind betting that the story about Apple displays is just
>marketing FUD created by one of Apple's competitors.  It's also very
>easy to get TCO 99 certification for a device which doesn't emit any
>radiation at wavelengths that are usually considered harmful (eg
>X-rays, UVC and microwaves).  I rather suspect that you would be very
>hard pressed to find an LCD PC display which hasn't been certified to
>TCO 99.

I hear what you say, and the 'radiation' doesn't worry me.

My other LCD monitor, by AOC, much better than the PC-World one,
doesn't have TCO99 certification.

-- 
J+

Dave <dave@henniker.org.uk> wrote:

>On Sat, 06 Apr 2002 18:39:00 +0100, mike-barred@philomel.demon.co.uk
>(Mike) wrote:

>>The
>>LCD panel itself emits nothing, although some LCD technologies use a
>>very small magnetic field within the panel.
>>
>How does the magnetic field work? The only magnetic field I can think
>of is the stray magnetic field from the inverter circuit's
>transformer, used to step the voltage up to maybe 10KV. 

IIRC some liquid crystal materials require the presence of a magnetic
field in order to make the state change at room temperature.  Very
fine lines of magnetic material are laid down on panels that use such
liquid crystal materials during its manufacture.

-- 
Mike Humberston
unbar email address to reply.