CRT causing a charge in case

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by 1st-timer, Jul 20, 2004.

  1. 1st-timer

    1st-timer Guest

    So this old 17" CRT from dell seems to be responsible for the tingling
    sensation I get when touching my comp's case... Is it safe to have

    1st-timer, Jul 20, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. 1st-timer

    °Mike° Guest

    What happens if you disconnect the monitor altogether,
    mains and component, and use another one? Do you still
    get the tingling? In any case, I'd get a competent electrician
    to take a look at your system, including electrical outlets.
    °Mike°, Jul 20, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. 1st-timer

    jsc Guest

    if in doubt still, and having the problem, take a piece of copper wire
    attach it to a screw on the back of your case, then to something else, like
    a metal desk leg,
    jsc, Jul 20, 2004
  4. 1st-timer

    Geoff Guest

    This must be the most lethal piece of advice ever offered on this newsgroup!
    If there is a fault on the computer and the case is live, Then connecting a
    metal desk leg to it will make that live as well !!!
    I can understand where you are coming from by trying to earth the case, but
    a metal leg is NOT earthed.
    I didn't see the original to this thread, but if there is a tingling from
    any metal part of the cabinet it means that it is not earthed properly.
    Check your mains plug on the pc to make sure that the earth connection is
    properly made. If it is, then get a competent electrician to check your
    house wiring earthing.

    As a health & safety officer responsible for over 20 pcs, trust me, there
    should be NO tingling from any metal parts!

    Does the monitor have its own power cable with a plug on or is it one of
    those that goes from the monitor to a socket on the back of the pc? This
    method is no longer used because of safety problems. Use separate leads for
    the pc and monitor.

    If the tingling is felt only on any plastic part of the case then this is
    most probably just static and although annoying, is quite harmless.

    Hope this is of some help.


    Geoff, Jul 20, 2004
  5. 1st-timer

    Scraggy Guest

    Scraggy, Jul 20, 2004
  6. 1st-timer

    John Guest

    John, Jul 20, 2004
  7. 1st-timer

    °Mike° Guest

    Please don't give up your day job.

    °Mike°, Jul 20, 2004
  8. 1st-timer

    °Mike° Guest

    °Mike°, Jul 20, 2004
  9. 1st-timer

    John Guest

    That's not my problem. Use a decent server. If you put a w3c icon on a
    page and publish it on a crap server which trashes it, it's not w3c.

    <explanation for the slowest member of the class>

    The whole point of standards compliance in this instance is that the
    html that people download complies to a standard. When I open that link,
    my browser reads all the html provided by your server (which you alone
    chose). You have added a w3c icon because you think it makes you look
    competent. Unfortunately the html which you (or your agent, the web
    server) provide is not w3c. The icon is therefore misused, and you
    contribute to your reputation as the laughing stock of
    24hoursupport.helpdesk. For extra after-class support please visit the
    FAQ of the w3c web site, where they will explain in great detail the
    correct procedures for using their icons.

    </explanation for the slowest member of the class>

    Talking of which, why don't you put a link there rather than an image
    (which you're asked to do anyway), so people can verify for themselves
    that the html which you are serving up is syntactic rubbish.

    With contempt,

    John, Jul 21, 2004
  10. 1st-timer

    John Guest

    °Mike° wrote:

    Web content providers are granted the right to use the "W3C valid" logo
    on pages that pass validation (though the use of the W3C Markup
    Validator) for the W3C technology represented by the icon, and only on
    pages that pass validation. The icon *must* be used as a link to
    revalidate the Web page, thus providing a way to verify the page
    author's assertion that it passed validation.

    (my emphasis)
    ( )

    Please reconcile this statement with your use of the icon at ( )
    John, Jul 22, 2004
  11. 1st-timer

    Rick Merrill Guest

    John wrote:
    I agree.
    Rick Merrill, Jul 22, 2004
  12. 1st-timer

    °Mike° Guest

    Nice snippage, Jonnie-boi.

    What part of ...
    "Look, moron, "maintenance.html" IS w3c compliant."
    .... don't you understand?

    Have you even bothered to take into account that
    the validator is not just for urls, but for uploaded
    documents, too? Of course you haven't, because
    you're just looking for an excuse to stamp those
    filthy little feet of yours some more, aren't you,
    °Mike°, Jul 22, 2004
  13. 1st-timer

    John Guest

    Yes, I'm sure that the "maintenance.html" sitting on your hard disk is.
    By all means, let people come round and sit in front of your PC,
    admiring your w3c compliant page. Unfortunately,
    "" is NOT w3c
    compliant and shouldn't be advertised as such.

    I think I've hit a raw nerve. You can't worm your way out of the
    requirement to revalidate the web page by link can you? I suppose that's
    just a *guideline* as well. The word "must" only applies when you feel
    like it does it?

    Mike's homework:

    1. Get some decent web space (a share of a Raq server is quite cheap)
    2. Include the recommended revalidating icon link in all your HTML.
    3. Upload the new version of maintenance.html and all the rest of your
    pages to the new server.
    4. Double check that all the revalidating links work.
    5. Say thank you to John on 24hoursupport.helpdesk for helping you to
    be a more standards compliant person.

    I don't want to distract you from your work so I won't be responding to
    your little tantrums until you've done your homework.

    John, Jul 23, 2004
  14. 1st-timer

    °Mike° Guest

    No, moron, "maintenance.html" on the Geocities server
    is w3c compliant -- you're really having trouble grasping
    that concept, aren't you, sweetie pie?

    Try saying this to yourself ten thousand times:
    Try saying this to yourself another ten thousand times:
    Try saying this to yourself ANOTHER ten thousand times:
    BZZZZZZZZZT! Other way around, sweetums; why else
    would you cut and run, eh?
    You're the one that cut and run, not I.
    There is no need, nor requirement to do so, dolt.
    What a complete idiot you are, Johnny. Something else
    that you seem to have no idea about, is that you can
    download the validator onto your own system, so that
    there is no need to validate online ... DUH!
    Oh, that's so sweet of you, poochums. Ta muchly.
    Request (again) denied.
    I notice that you now actually recognise the word "recommended".

    Request (again) denied.
    No need. Request (again) denied.
    No need. Request (again) denied.
    That's right, little John-boi, cut and run -- you're arse is
    still way ahead of you, by the way. Oh, and is that a
    promise? Can I hold you to that statement? TTFN, coward.
    BZZZZZZZZZZZ! You're that one that's been stamping and
    huffing, crybaby -- now run along, and wipe your nose.
    °Mike°, Jul 23, 2004
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.