When I was recently into the back of my Sony KV-27EXR15 set, I saw
some warnings about X-ray radiation exposure. Is there significant
exposure hazard while working on the set from the back? Since the
enclosure is entirely plastic, I would think that you'd be exposed to
x-rays no matter where you were located in relationship to the set,
not just when you opened the back to have a look.

Any comments?

Properly operating the risk is minimal, there are protect circuts within the
set which protect from over voltage and over current which, in design, shut
down the set.
"Darmok" wrote in message
...
When I was recently into the back of my Sony KV-27EXR15 set, I saw
some warnings about X-ray radiation exposure. Is there significant
exposure hazard while working on the set from the back? Since the
enclosure is entirely plastic, I would think that you'd be exposed to
x-rays no matter where you were located in relationship to the set,
not just when you opened the back to have a look.

Any comments?

It certainly used to be a real problem in the old days, when a PD500 shunt
regulator valve ( tube ) was used in the EHT supply. When working with the
deflection stage cage open, a lead glass shield had to be placed over this
device.

X Rays are easily created by accelerating a stream of electrons, and
slamming them into some kind of anode, and the 25 kV used in a CTV is plenty
enough to generate an electron beam with enough energy to do just this.

However, the electron beam should not actually ever touch the anode inside
the picture tube - otherwise no electrons would ever reach the faceplate to
light up the phosphor. The electrons do, however, dissipate large amounts of
their energy, when they collide with the slotmask inside the CRT. As far as
I know, this manifests as heat, but possibly, some soft x rays may be
generated. You are right that any generated to the rear or sides would
probably escape through the plastic cabinet, but the inside of this, or even
the plastic itself, may be treated to prevent EM radiation of all
wavelengths, as there is paranoia these days about such things.

I don't think that there is any significant danger from x rays any more from
CTVs. I would guess that as there is high voltage present, and high energy
electron beams present, the manufacturers err on the side of caution and
warn of the possibility of random x ray generation. As an addition, no x
rays would escape from the picture tube faceplate, as this is made from lead
doped glass to be sufficiently conductive to form the return path for the
spent electrons.

Geoff


"Darmok" wrote in message
...
When I was recently into the back of my Sony KV-27EXR15 set, I saw
some warnings about X-ray radiation exposure. Is there significant
exposure hazard while working on the set from the back? Since the
enclosure is entirely plastic, I would think that you'd be exposed to
x-rays no matter where you were located in relationship to the set,
not just when you opened the back to have a look.

Any comments?

"Art" writes:

Properly operating the risk is minimal, there are protect circuts within the
set which protect from over voltage and over current which, in design, shut
down the set.

Also keep in mind that the same warnings are on 1/2 inch camcorder
viewfinder CRTs.

And, as noted, the plastic won't block the X-rays so it's not much different
than with the back on.

--- sam | Sci.Electronics.Repair FAQ Mirror: http://repairfaq.ece.drexel.edu/
Repair | Main Table of Contents: http://repairfaq.ece.drexel.edu/REPAIR/
+Lasers | Sam's Laser FAQ: http://repairfaq.ece.drexel.edu/sam/lasersam.htm
| Mirror Sites: http://repairfaq.ece.drexel.edu/REPAIR/F_mirror.html

Note: These links are hopefully temporary until we can sort out the excessive
traffic on Repairfaq.org.

Important: Anything sent to the email address in the message header above is
ignored unless my full name is included in the subject line. Or, you can
contact me via the Feedback Form in the FAQs.

On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 06:18:13 -0400, Darmok
wrote:

When I was recently into the back of my Sony KV-27EXR15 set, I saw
some warnings about X-ray radiation exposure. Is there significant
exposure hazard while working on the set from the back? Since the
enclosure is entirely plastic, I would think that you'd be exposed to
x-rays no matter where you were located in relationship to the set,
not just when you opened the back to have a look.

Most television sets are designed to be watched from the
frontside.
And in case someone forgets, there is that warning on the back.

But in practice: if you work on a life color-tv, X-ray radiation
is probably the least of your worries.

--
Kind regards,
Gerard Bok

"Darmok" wrote in message
...

When I was recently into the back of my Sony KV-27EXR15 set, I saw
some warnings about X-ray radiation exposure. Is there significant
exposure hazard while working on the set from the back? Since the
enclosure is entirely plastic, I would think that you'd be exposed to
x-rays no matter where you were located in relationship to the set,
not just when you opened the back to have a look.

There is a slight danger from X-Rays. There is also a slight danger from
repairing the set while in a swimming pool. Tobacco smoking is a REAL
danger.

N

Thanks for all the input. I guess, for the person who only looks into
the back of an operating TV once or twice a year, the hazard is
minimal. However, if my job were to be looking into the back end of
operating color TVs all day long, day after day, year after year, that
might be a different story. I wonder if there are any full-time TV
servicemen (women) who follow this NG who could give their input?

Cheers

Just a quick FYI. The KV sets the energy level of the x-ray and the
current sets the quantity of x-rays produced. 25KV is right at the
threshold for x-ray generation capability of any significant level.
Hence the critical nature of the x-ray protect circuits.

The energy level would indicate how thick of an xray stopping material
would be required to protect you. At 25KV the lead in the glass is
enough to stop virtually all errant x-rays produced. The mA is the
amount of electrons flowing and the greater the electrons hitting the
surface, the greater the quantity of x-rays.

The dosimeters only measure the exposure to the quantity of x-rays, but
not the energy level. The higher the energy level the greater the
chance of causing a DNA mutation. The higher the dose over time, the
greater the chance of causing a DNA mutation.

I've been in the business 27 yrs, back in the old days of tube sets,
and early solid state there was no safety protection. Anybody remember
the old Zenith 20Y1C50 type set with a bad VDR? The HV would run
35-40KV all day, people happily watching their TV didn't know or care
the HV was too high and never hurt a thing, or the old Zenith 25EC
chassis with the bad safety capacitor that would let the high voltage
climb so high it would cut the neck off the picture tube? Never hurt
anyone that I know of. Sure never worried me then or now.

Darmok wrote:
Thanks for all the input. I guess, for the person who only looks into
the back of an operating TV once or twice a year, the hazard is
minimal. However, if my job were to be looking into the back end of
operating color TVs all day long, day after day, year after year, that
might be a different story. I wonder if there are any full-time TV
servicemen (women) who follow this NG who could give their input?

Cheers

On 15 Jun 2005 20:31:42 -0700, "RonKZ650" wrote:

I've been in the business 27 yrs, back in the old days of tube sets,
and early solid state there was no safety protection. Anybody remember
the old Zenith 20Y1C50 type set with a bad VDR? The HV would run
35-40KV all day, people happily watching their TV didn't know or care
the HV was too high and never hurt a thing, or the old Zenith 25EC
chassis with the bad safety capacitor that would let the high voltage
climb so high it would cut the neck off the picture tube? Never hurt
anyone that I know of. Sure never worried me then or now.


Thanks for your input!


Darmok wrote:
Thanks for all the input. I guess, for the person who only looks into
the back of an operating TV once or twice a year, the hazard is
minimal. However, if my job were to be looking into the back end of
operating color TVs all day long, day after day, year after year, that
might be a different story. I wonder if there are any full-time TV
servicemen (women) who follow this NG who could give their input?

Cheers

"RonKZ650" writes:

I've been in the business 27 yrs, back in the old days of tube sets,
and early solid state there was no safety protection. Anybody remember
the old Zenith 20Y1C50 type set with a bad VDR? The HV would run
35-40KV all day, people happily watching their TV didn't know or care
the HV was too high and never hurt a thing, or the old Zenith 25EC
chassis with the bad safety capacitor that would let the high voltage
climb so high it would cut the neck off the picture tube? Never hurt
anyone that I know of. Sure never worried me then or now.

How exactly would you know if it hurt anyone? It's not like you would
glow in the dark. Cancers can appear decades later....

--- sam | Sci.Electronics.Repair FAQ Mirror: http://repairfaq.ece.drexel.edu/
Repair | Main Table of Contents: http://repairfaq.ece.drexel.edu/REPAIR/
+Lasers | Sam's Laser FAQ: http://repairfaq.ece.drexel.edu/sam/lasersam.htm
| Mirror Sites: http://repairfaq.ece.drexel.edu/REPAIR/F_mirror.html

Note: These links are hopefully temporary until we can sort out the excessive
traffic on Repairfaq.org.

Important: Anything sent to the email address in the message header above is
ignored unless my full name is included in the subject line. Or, you can
contact me via the Feedback Form in the FAQs.

Ditto: same question.
You do not know if xrays injured you, unless it was prolonged exposure
of minutes or hours to an extremely high dose where you will have xray
burns.

Cancer and DNA damage may not show up for years later.

"Sam Goldwasser" wrote in message
...

How exactly would you know if it hurt anyone? It's not like you would
glow in the dark. Cancers can appear decades later....

You're not supposed to glow in the dark? Oh crap!

N

NSM wrote:

"Sam Goldwasser" wrote in message
...


How exactly would you know if it hurt anyone? It's not like you would
glow in the dark. Cancers can appear decades later....


You're not supposed to glow in the dark? Oh crap!

N

Send your application to Jeff Probst for the next Survivor.
Outwit, outplay, outglow

Ken

In article .com,
wrote:

Just a quick FYI. The KV sets the energy level of the x-ray and the
current sets the quantity of x-rays produced. 25KV is right at the
threshold for x-ray generation capability of any significant level.
Hence the critical nature of the x-ray protect circuits.

Unless you've got a set like my old CTC-7, where the X ray protection
circuitry is just that the darn thing can't make the full 25kv most of
the time

Mine's got a 21FBP22 in it. I can't imnagine what the 21CYP22s were
like, . since this one's a rare earth. Reds so red they're orange...

Oh yeah, the remote acts funny. Yep, 4 function (on/off/mute/channel).
Sometimes just goes bonkers on its own accord. Thankfully, you can turn
it off...

"Darmok" wrote in message
...
When I was recently into the back of my Sony KV-27EXR15 set, I saw
some warnings about X-ray radiation exposure. Is there significant
exposure hazard while working on the set from the back? Since the
enclosure is entirely plastic, I would think that you'd be exposed to
x-rays no matter where you were located in relationship to the set,
not just when you opened the back to have a look.

Any comments?


On a modern TV, zero risk, I've seen people *try* to make Xrays with a TV
CRT and have very little success, there's just too much lead in the glass.

"James Sweet" wrote in message
news:mHqse.15960$L65.7495@trnddc05...

On a modern TV, zero risk, I've seen people *try* to make Xrays with a TV
CRT and have very little success, there's just too much lead in the glass.

Better to look at "The Amateur Scientist" in "Scientific American". I'm sure
they have had a do it yourself X-Ray generator.

N

"NSM" writes:

"James Sweet" wrote in message
news:mHqse.15960$L65.7495@trnddc05...

On a modern TV, zero risk, I've seen people *try* to make Xrays with a TV
CRT and have very little success, there's just too much lead in the glass.

Better to look at "The Amateur Scientist" in "Scientific American". I'm sure
they have had a do it yourself X-Ray generator.

Typically they use an old high voltage rectifier tube. Never heard of
using a CRT.

--- sam | Sci.Electronics.Repair FAQ Mirror: http://repairfaq.ece.drexel.edu/
Repair | Main Table of Contents: http://repairfaq.ece.drexel.edu/REPAIR/
+Lasers | Sam's Laser FAQ: http://repairfaq.ece.drexel.edu/sam/lasersam.htm
| Mirror Sites: http://repairfaq.ece.drexel.edu/REPAIR/F_mirror.html

Note: These links are hopefully temporary until we can sort out the excessive
traffic on Repairfaq.org.

Important: Anything sent to the email address in the message header above is
ignored unless my full name is included in the subject line. Or, you can
contact me via the Feedback Form in the FAQs.

"Sam Goldwasser" wrote in message
...
"NSM" writes:

Typically they use an old high voltage rectifier tube. Never heard of
using a CRT.

That's my recollection too.

N

"Sam Goldwasser" wrote in message
...
"NSM" writes:

"James Sweet" wrote in message
news:mHqse.15960$L65.7495@trnddc05...

On a modern TV, zero risk, I've seen people *try* to make Xrays with a
TV
CRT and have very little success, there's just too much lead in the
glass.

Better to look at "The Amateur Scientist" in "Scientific American". I'm
sure
they have had a do it yourself X-Ray generator.

Typically they use an old high voltage rectifier tube. Never heard of
using a CRT.



It was more of an experiment just to see if Xrays could be produced with a
CRT, as I recall about all it did was melt a big hole in the shadow mask.

On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 01:27:01 GMT, "James Sweet"
wrote:


"Sam Goldwasser" wrote in message
...
"NSM" writes:

"James Sweet" wrote in message
news:mHqse.15960$L65.7495@trnddc05...

On a modern TV, zero risk, I've seen people *try* to make Xrays with a
TV
CRT and have very little success, there's just too much lead in the
glass.

Better to look at "The Amateur Scientist" in "Scientific American". I'm
sure
they have had a do it yourself X-Ray generator.

Typically they use an old high voltage rectifier tube. Never heard of
using a CRT.



It was more of an experiment just to see if Xrays could be produced with a
CRT, as I recall about all it did was melt a big hole in the shadow mask.


Okay, so I can see that the majority are clearly of a mind that xrays
cannot pass through the heavily leaded front of the picture tube.
What about the thin, transparent neck in the back of the tube?
Nothing much offering protection there, is there?

Darmok writes:

On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 01:27:01 GMT, "James Sweet"
wrote:


"Sam Goldwasser" wrote in message
...
"NSM" writes:

"James Sweet" wrote in message
news:mHqse.15960$L65.7495@trnddc05...

On a modern TV, zero risk, I've seen people *try* to make Xrays with a
TV
CRT and have very little success, there's just too much lead in the
glass.

Better to look at "The Amateur Scientist" in "Scientific American". I'm
sure
they have had a do it yourself X-Ray generator.

Typically they use an old high voltage rectifier tube. Never heard of
using a CRT.



It was more of an experiment just to see if Xrays could be produced with a
CRT, as I recall about all it did was melt a big hole in the shadow mask.

Okay, so I can see that the majority are clearly of a mind that xrays
cannot pass through the heavily leaded front of the picture tube.
What about the thin, transparent neck in the back of the tube?
Nothing much offering protection there, is there?

Many computer rooms, work cubicals, etc., have the monitors lined up
back-to-back so that people on the opposite side would receive the
X-rays from the back of the other monitors. If X-rays were a significant
issue, we would have heard about it by now.

--- sam | Sci.Electronics.Repair FAQ Mirror: http://repairfaq.ece.drexel.edu/
Repair | Main Table of Contents: http://repairfaq.ece.drexel.edu/REPAIR/
+Lasers | Sam's Laser FAQ: http://repairfaq.ece.drexel.edu/sam/lasersam.htm
| Mirror Sites: http://repairfaq.ece.drexel.edu/REPAIR/F_mirror.html

Note: These links are hopefully temporary until we can sort out the excessive
traffic on Repairfaq.org.

Important: Anything sent to the email address in the message header above is
ignored unless my full name is included in the subject line. Or, you can
contact me via the Feedback Form in the FAQs.

On 18 Jun 2005 08:04:55 -0400, Sam Goldwasser
wrote:

Okay, so I can see that the majority are clearly of a mind that xrays
cannot pass through the heavily leaded front of the picture tube.
What about the thin, transparent neck in the back of the tube?
Nothing much offering protection there, is there?

Many computer rooms, work cubicals, etc., have the monitors lined up
back-to-back so that people on the opposite side would receive the
X-rays from the back of the other monitors. If X-rays were a significant
issue, we would have heard about it by now.

How long did it take to get the news about smoking ?
About asbestos ? And about zillions of other hazards ?

Bye the way: why are these cubicals being bulk-replaced by LCD ?
:-)

--
Kind regards,
Gerard Bok

Gerard Bok wrote:
On 18 Jun 2005 08:04:55 -0400, Sam Goldwasser
wrote:


Okay, so I can see that the majority are clearly of a mind that xrays
cannot pass through the heavily leaded front of the picture tube.
What about the thin, transparent neck in the back of the tube?
Nothing much offering protection there, is there?

Many computer rooms, work cubicals, etc., have the monitors lined up
back-to-back so that people on the opposite side would receive the
X-rays from the back of the other monitors. If X-rays were a significant
issue, we would have heard about it by now.


How long did it take to get the news about smoking ?
About asbestos ? And about zillions of other hazards ?

Bye the way: why are these cubicals being bulk-replaced by LCD ?
:-)

Hi...

Not sure it's the *only* reason, but the compelling one is
energy consumption.

Ken

Ken Weitzel wrote:
Not sure it's the *only* reason, but the compelling one is
energy consumption.

Indeed I find it compelling for the energy supplier that those monitors
are indeed consuming _more_ energy, at least in standby...

---
Met vriendelijke groet,

Maarten Bakker.

"Gerard Bok" wrote in message
...

Bye the way: why are these cubicals being bulk-replaced by LCD ?

It's the fashion of the day.

N

"NSM" writes:

"Gerard Bok" wrote in message
...

Bye the way: why are these cubicals being bulk-replaced by LCD ?

It's the fashion of the day.

Your company isn't with it unless they have replaced all their CRTs with
LCD monitors. What would the clients/customers think? Never mind that
a good CRT monitor still has advantages for many applications with its
better color rendition and so forth.

I wonder if those that make such decisions really think about the
power saving issues, whether they are bogus or not. It's probably some
clueless CEO type making those decisions.

--- sam | Sci.Electronics.Repair FAQ Mirror: http://repairfaq.ece.drexel.edu/
Repair | Main Table of Contents: http://repairfaq.ece.drexel.edu/REPAIR/
+Lasers | Sam's Laser FAQ: http://repairfaq.ece.drexel.edu/sam/lasersam.htm
| Mirror Sites: http://repairfaq.ece.drexel.edu/REPAIR/F_mirror.html

Note: These links are hopefully temporary until we can sort out the excessive
traffic on Repairfaq.org.

Important: Anything sent to the email address in the message header above is
ignored unless my full name is included in the subject line. Or, you can
contact me via the Feedback Form in the FAQs.

"Sam Goldwasser" wrote in message
...

Your company isn't with it unless they have replaced all their CRTs with
LCD monitors. What would the clients/customers think? Never mind that
a good CRT monitor still has advantages for many applications with its
better color rendition and so forth.

I wonder if those that make such decisions really think about the
power saving issues, whether they are bogus or not. It's probably some
clueless CEO type making those decisions.

I just had to choose between $270 for a baseline LCD model with dubious
lifespan and repairability or $130 for a superb glass monitor with excellent
features. Easy choice. I _will_ be buying an LCD soon, but only if it saves
room on a narrow reception counter.

N

Okay, so I can see that the majority are clearly of a mind that xrays
cannot pass through the heavily leaded front of the picture tube.
What about the thin, transparent neck in the back of the tube?
Nothing much offering protection there, is there?



The glass there has lead in it too, but the anode is not there, it's at the
front of the tube. It's just not possible to get xrays out the back, you
can't deflect the beam back to there and there's nothing for it to strike if
you could.

Bye the way: why are these cubicals being bulk-replaced by LCD ?
:-)



CRT monitors everywhere are being bulk replaced by LCD, mostly it's size,
you can fit more people jammed in a room if the monitors are thinner, then
there's power consumption, and heat, resulting in less air conditioning
load.

wrote in message
...
Ken Weitzel wrote:
Not sure it's the *only* reason, but the compelling one is
energy consumption.

Indeed I find it compelling for the energy supplier that those monitors
are indeed consuming _more_ energy, at least in standby...



Huh? Typical CRT monitor is 150W, typical LCD is 35W, even if the LCD uses a
tiny bit more in standby, it still comes out far ahead in most cases.

James Sweet wrote:
Huh? Typical CRT monitor is 150W, typical LCD is 35W, even if the LCD uses a
tiny bit more in standby, it still comes out far ahead in most cases.

You are right of course, I was not thinking when I wrote this. What I
meant to say was, don't think it will consume no power when switched
off. In some cases it can draw in excess of 10 watts then, compared with
a typical 0.5W power draw for a CRT monitor. It will make up for this
when used more than a few minutes a day, but still.

---
Met vriendelijke groet,

Maarten Bakker.

wrote in message
...
James Sweet wrote:
Huh? Typical CRT monitor is 150W, typical LCD is 35W, even if the LCD
uses a
tiny bit more in standby, it still comes out far ahead in most cases.

You are right of course, I was not thinking when I wrote this. What I
meant to say was, don't think it will consume no power when switched
off. In some cases it can draw in excess of 10 watts then, compared with
a typical 0.5W power draw for a CRT monitor. It will make up for this
when used more than a few minutes a day, but still.

---
Met vriendelijke groet,

Maarten Bakker.
what are you smoking dutchman seems to be stronger than pot
1/2 a watt CRT on stanby?
get real the freakin pilot light on the front uses that much

"PCK" wrote in message
news

wrote in message
...
James Sweet wrote:
Huh? Typical CRT monitor is 150W, typical LCD is 35W, even if the LCD
uses a
tiny bit more in standby, it still comes out far ahead in most cases.

You are right of course, I was not thinking when I wrote this. What I
meant to say was, don't think it will consume no power when switched
off. In some cases it can draw in excess of 10 watts then, compared with
a typical 0.5W power draw for a CRT monitor. It will make up for this
when used more than a few minutes a day, but still.

---
Met vriendelijke groet,

Maarten Bakker.
what are you smoking dutchman seems to be stronger than pot
1/2 a watt CRT on stanby?
get real the freakin pilot light on the front uses that much



I think he meant when you turn it completely off, in which case it shouldn't
use any power at all, while an LCD will normally have an external PSU which
is powered up all the time.

James Sweet wrote:
"PCK" wrote in message
what are you smoking dutchman seems to be stronger than pot
1/2 a watt CRT on stanby?
get real the freakin pilot light on the front uses that much




I think he meant when you turn it completely off, in which case it shouldn't
use any power at all, while an LCD will normally have an external PSU which
is powered up all the time.

Thanks for translating this, i did start thinking that my English was
outdated when reading that.... ;-)

JAnne G

On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 19:30:52 -0400, "PCK"
wrote:


wrote in message
l...
James Sweet wrote:
Huh? Typical CRT monitor is 150W, typical LCD is 35W, even if the LCD
uses a
tiny bit more in standby, it still comes out far ahead in most cases.

You are right of course, I was not thinking when I wrote this. What I
meant to say was, don't think it will consume no power when switched
off. In some cases it can draw in excess of 10 watts then, compared with
a typical 0.5W power draw for a CRT monitor. It will make up for this
when used more than a few minutes a day, but still.

---
Met vriendelijke groet,

Maarten Bakker.
what are you smoking dutchman seems to be stronger than pot
1/2 a watt CRT on stanby?
get real the freakin pilot light on the front uses that much


In a properly designed LED 'pilot light', you'd have far less than a
half watt.

5vdc x 20ma. = 0.1 watt

There are low power LEDs which run on much less than that.

"Darmok" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 19:30:52 -0400, "PCK"
wrote:


wrote in message
l...
James Sweet wrote:
Huh? Typical CRT monitor is 150W, typical LCD is 35W, even if the LCD
uses a
tiny bit more in standby, it still comes out far ahead in most cases.

You are right of course, I was not thinking when I wrote this. What I
meant to say was, don't think it will consume no power when switched
off. In some cases it can draw in excess of 10 watts then, compared
with
a typical 0.5W power draw for a CRT monitor. It will make up for this
when used more than a few minutes a day, but still.

---
Met vriendelijke groet,

Maarten Bakker.
what are you smoking dutchman seems to be stronger than pot
1/2 a watt CRT on stanby?
get real the freakin pilot light on the front uses that much


In a properly designed LED 'pilot light', you'd have far less than a
half watt.

5vdc x 20ma. = 0.1 watt

There are low power LEDs which run on much less than that.

You're right about the LED of course, the problem is that far more than the
LED remains powered up when the monitor is in standby. Personally I just
shut it off whenever I get up from the computer for more than a couple
minutes, always have. I never really understood the significance of the
standby feature but I guess a lot of people are lazy.

Thankfully the new Energy Star standards went into effect this year, so
now the limit for that certification is 4 watts in standby. Next year
it will be 2 watts in standby. However, at least the pair of Dell flat
panels I'm using are specificed at 2 watts standby already. Since that
costs me a few cents a month I just don't think about it. More benefit
was obtained by going to a 90%-class power supply for my system. Season
and a couple others make those.

-Keith

Just some comments for the history of the problem

The original X-Ray problem was found in some GE color tube sets that used a
triode
as a high voltage shunt regulator.

As long as the shunt was working properly there was no significant X-Ray
production and the triode was designed to contain the very low KV (soft)
X-Rays it did produce.

It was found that there was a failure mode that allowed the HV to rise and
the increased voltage was enough to generate a stronger (harder) X-Ray that
could exit the shunt tube.

As I recall the most intense area was directed down through the bottom of
the case. One of the comments about it's danger was that the most likely
person to receive significant exposure was the bar tender standing under a
wall mounted set.

I was part of a radiation safety team that inspected a GE plant in Illinois
that produced this chassie in the middle 1960s. As I recall there was no
recommendations for any changes to the production line at the plant to
reduce the exposure levels as there was not a level of radiation present
that required it.

A set was badly misadjusted for us to make some measurements that confirmed
the exposure levels.

Hugh
retired Nuke Safety Geek


----- Original Message -----
From: "Sam Goldwasser"
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.repair
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 7:02 AM
Subject: X-ray danger whilst working on TV?


"NSM" writes:

"James Sweet" wrote in message
news:mHqse.15960$L65.7495@trnddc05...

On a modern TV, zero risk, I've seen people *try* to make Xrays with a
TV
CRT and have very little success, there's just too much lead in the
glass.

Better to look at "The Amateur Scientist" in "Scientific American". I'm
sure
they have had a do it yourself X-Ray generator.

Typically they use an old high voltage rectifier tube. Never heard of
using a CRT.

--- sam | Sci.Electronics.Repair FAQ Mirror:
http://repairfaq.ece.drexel.edu/
Repair | Main Table of Contents: http://repairfaq.ece.drexel.edu/REPAIR/
+Lasers | Sam's Laser FAQ:
http://repairfaq.ece.drexel.edu/sam/lasersam.htm
| Mirror Sites:
http://repairfaq.ece.drexel.edu/REPAIR/F_mirror.html

Note: These links are hopefully temporary until we can sort out the
excessive
traffic on Repairfaq.org.

Important: Anything sent to the email address in the message header above
is
ignored unless my full name is included in the subject line. Or, you can
contact me via the Feedback Form in the FAQs.




"Sam Goldwasser" wrote in message
...
"NSM" writes:

"James Sweet" wrote in message
news:mHqse.15960$L65.7495@trnddc05...

On a modern TV, zero risk, I've seen people *try* to make Xrays with a
TV
CRT and have very little success, there's just too much lead in the
glass.

Better to look at "The Amateur Scientist" in "Scientific American". I'm
sure
they have had a do it yourself X-Ray generator.

Typically they use an old high voltage rectifier tube. Never heard of
using a CRT.

--- sam | Sci.Electronics.Repair FAQ Mirror:
http://repairfaq.ece.drexel.edu/
Repair | Main Table of Contents: http://repairfaq.ece.drexel.edu/REPAIR/
+Lasers | Sam's Laser FAQ:
http://repairfaq.ece.drexel.edu/sam/lasersam.htm
| Mirror Sites:
http://repairfaq.ece.drexel.edu/REPAIR/F_mirror.html

Note: These links are hopefully temporary until we can sort out the
excessive
traffic on Repairfaq.org.

Important: Anything sent to the email address in the message header above
is
ignored unless my full name is included in the subject line. Or, you can
contact me via the Feedback Form in the FAQs.

PCK wrote:
what are you smoking dutchman seems to be stronger than pot
1/2 a watt CRT on stanby?
get real the freakin pilot light on the front uses that much

Of course I can't find the model was referring to now, but the Prodcut
sheets for most current Philips CRT monitors state less than 1 watt for
power off modus. Of course they could have used a real power switch to
bring this down to as low as 0 watts, as done in some Grundig TV sets
where you can actually make the power switch physically turn off by
remote control.

---
Met vriendelijke groet,

Maarten Bakker.