Continuing my Star Trek review, this time I wanted to talk about Star Trek: The Next Generation (herein referred to as just "TNG"). I would have to say that TNG is my favorite TV show of all time! This show ran from 1987 - 1994, the golden years of my childhood if you will. I was an impressionable 12 when TNG started. I'll admit, I first started watching the show because it was set in space and had great special effects. It was only after I grew up that I realized this show had everything from a well rounded cast, great acting, and superb writing.
Speaking of the cast, I'd like to briefly talk about each of the characters. Starting at the top you have Captain Picard. Let's face it, Picard is great because of the incredible acting of Patrick Stewart. He played this role so perfectly. Picard is confident and strong, and yet knows his weaknesses. He is the perfect person to lead the show. Second in command is William Riker - and here I have mixed feelings. My problem isn't with Jonathan Frakes acting ability - more the character bio. Riker is portrayed as a "ladies man." Just as I didn't care for this attribute in Kirk, I don't like it in Riker.
Next you have Commander Data who was by far my favorite character period! I loved the fact he was an android, no emotion and all logic. Yet with a poor grasp of humor and social interactions. Who knows, maybe this character resonated with me because of traits I see in myself. Anyway, Brent Spiner played this character perfectly. Some of my favorite episodes are Data-centered. After Data you've got Geordi La Forge. I always liked Geordi and his ability to diagnose and fix problems. I think one reason I liked Geordi was because later in life I would get a Bachelors of Science in Engineering, although at the time TNG was running I had no idea I would become an engineer. So inside I had the tendencies of an engineer but I didn't realize it yet.
The character of Worf never really spoke to me. Obviously as a Klingon he's portrayed as more of the "don't think just smash it" mentality which is definitely not me. I think Michael Dorn did a great job playing the role, and he has a commanding voice. Even though his character was far from my favorite, he did provide some great comic relief. The part where Q asks Worf if he's "eating any good books lately?" for example.
The ships doctor, Beverly Crusher, was a strong but caring female role. I liked her character and I felt like she deserved more screen time and plots centered around her. On the flip side you have Deanna Troi. Whine, whine, whine. Easily my least favorite character and the one I could do without. And frequently when you have a Deanna episode you have her mother Lwaxana Troi - easily my least favorite reoccurring character. There's just something about these two characters that make them so annoying to me.
Beyond the characters, TNG had some incredible visual effects. They still look good today, which is saying a lot when you consider this show is 20 years old not to mention this was a weekly TV show with a limited budget. I believe this is largely due to the fact that all space scenes were shot using models (this was before CGI took over). For the longest time CGI space ships looked very fake. They've since advanced to the point where it looks as good (or better than) models. But back in the last 80s and into the 90s, shows could either use primitive CGI or real models. Models were more expensive to make and shoot, but provided a more realistic show. To go with the visuals you have the audio. TNG (and all Star Trek series for that matter) is one of the few shows that uses a full orchestral audio recording. Which is funny because when you think about "orchestral music in a TV show" you think that's not for me. But it was perfectly executed and when you watch an episode you don't even realize it's there, but if it were missing you wouldn't enjoy it as much.
The writing staff on TNG was one of the best having produced many well-written episodes. My favorites were "The Inner Light," "Data's Day," "Starship Mine," and "Times Arrow."
I could literally go on for days about TNG. Such a great show with a lasting legacy. I own all seasons on DVD and watch them end to end every couple of years.
Friday, March 8, 2013
Tuesday, February 19, 2013
Project Dreamcast - Repair part 2
Last time I talked about the repair efforts on the Dreamcast GD-ROM drive. The new laser will read CDs, but will not read game discs. As I said, I don't know if the trimmer needs adjusting or not. But before I go that route, I wanted to check the rest of the GD-ROM drive.
Removing the entire GD-ROM drive assembly reveals the circuit board for the GD-ROM drive. The GD-ROM circuit board has a total of 10 surface mount electrolytic capacitors on it.
Capacitors are frequently the cause of old electronics going bad. Is it possible these old caps are preventing the GD-ROM drive from reading discs? I just so happen to have an ESR meter which is the best way to test a capacitor to see if it's good or bad.
When testing ESR values, lower is better. A high ESR value means the cap is going bad. Here is a table of the capacitors, their rating, the current ESR, and the expected ESR value.
As you can see, every single capacitor has a higher than expected ESR value. So before I try adjusting the trimmer on the laser, I want to replace these capacitors with new ones and see if that helps. Unfortunately I don't have any surface mount capacitors in my parts box, so I'll need to order new caps. I'll continue repair efforts in my next post once the replacement parts arrive.
The last thing I'll mention is the manufacture of the GD-ROM drive. The initial manufacture of the GD-ROM drives was Yamaha, but later on Sega switched to Samsung. From what I've heard, the Yamaha drives are much more reliable. From other repair work I've done, I've run into a lot of bad capacitors on Samsung products, so I won't be surprised in the least if the capacitors are the problem with this drive.
Removing the entire GD-ROM drive assembly reveals the circuit board for the GD-ROM drive. The GD-ROM circuit board has a total of 10 surface mount electrolytic capacitors on it.
Capacitors are frequently the cause of old electronics going bad. Is it possible these old caps are preventing the GD-ROM drive from reading discs? I just so happen to have an ESR meter which is the best way to test a capacitor to see if it's good or bad.
When testing ESR values, lower is better. A high ESR value means the cap is going bad. Here is a table of the capacitors, their rating, the current ESR, and the expected ESR value.
As you can see, every single capacitor has a higher than expected ESR value. So before I try adjusting the trimmer on the laser, I want to replace these capacitors with new ones and see if that helps. Unfortunately I don't have any surface mount capacitors in my parts box, so I'll need to order new caps. I'll continue repair efforts in my next post once the replacement parts arrive.
The last thing I'll mention is the manufacture of the GD-ROM drive. The initial manufacture of the GD-ROM drives was Yamaha, but later on Sega switched to Samsung. From what I've heard, the Yamaha drives are much more reliable. From other repair work I've done, I've run into a lot of bad capacitors on Samsung products, so I won't be surprised in the least if the capacitors are the problem with this drive.
Sci-Fi Review - Star Trek
As a self-proclaimed "nerd" I realize there is one thing missing from my blog - my personal views and opinions on classic Science-Fiction. In this first installment in a series of posts I'll talk about Star Trek... the original Star Trek from the 1960s.
I'll start off by saying I LOVE Star Trek! Star Trek is easily my favorite Sci-Fi program, beating out other heavy-weights such as Star Wars and Stargate. As a kid I loved the space scenes, the futuristic nature of the show, the special effects, etc. But as I've grown up with Star Trek, I've come to realize what makes Star Trek truly great isn't this "technical" aspect of the show but it's the character development and Gene Roddenberry's depiction of the future. I guess you could call Gene the ultimate optimist. His view of humanity's future was extremely positive. In Star Trek he depicts a future with very little crime, disease, or pollution - one in which all mankind has learned to get along with everyone else, and in which the "goal" that drives people forward isn't the acquisition of wealth, power, or money but the driving force is betterment of mankind as a whole and increased knowledge and understanding. That in and of itself is very radical thinking. It creates this positive world in which you, the viewer, find yourself wanting to be a part of. To see a future where you don't have to worry about food, money, or illness and can instead focus on learning and helping others is very captivating. That's kind of the background of Star Trek in general. But let's talk specifically about the Star Trek from the 1960s.
Even though I LOVE Star Trek, I just cannot watch the original Star Trek. The problem has always been the low production value, I have a hard time getting past things like blocks of foam painted to look like rocks. Having been born in the mid 70s, I grew up in a world post Star Wars. This set a new standard for special effects in Sci-Fi. So when I try and watch the original Star Trek, I have a hard time. As such I've only seen a few episodes end to end. And yes, it's hard to judge an entire show based upon one or two episodes. I really should go back and sit down and watch the episodes.
Even though I haven't seen much of the original Star Trek, I have seen enough to know what I like and don't like. Starting at the top, I never cared for Kirk. He's portrayed as a "ladies man" which to me isn't what Sci-Fi is about. I don't watch Sci-Fi to watch someone "hit" on every sexy alien they find. Spock on the other hand, I always liked his cold hard logical aspect. Beyond the big two - I liked Scotty the engineer, although I felt his accent was a bit thick. Many of the other characters had less of an impression on me. I liked that Gene included different nationalities, races, and sexes in his future. Although the true impact of this is probably lost on me having grown up after the race and general equality movements of the 60s and 70s.
As for the technology of the show - some of the futuristic ideas have already become reality. If you compare the Star Trek communicator to a modern cell phone (in size, design, and function) you'll find they are nearly identical. We obviously don't have large star ships and faster than light space travel, but I would argue modern super computers probably exceed what is depicted in the show.
I guess to sum up, although the original Star Trek series isn't for me, it did lay the necessary groundwork for the future Star Trek series.
I'll start off by saying I LOVE Star Trek! Star Trek is easily my favorite Sci-Fi program, beating out other heavy-weights such as Star Wars and Stargate. As a kid I loved the space scenes, the futuristic nature of the show, the special effects, etc. But as I've grown up with Star Trek, I've come to realize what makes Star Trek truly great isn't this "technical" aspect of the show but it's the character development and Gene Roddenberry's depiction of the future. I guess you could call Gene the ultimate optimist. His view of humanity's future was extremely positive. In Star Trek he depicts a future with very little crime, disease, or pollution - one in which all mankind has learned to get along with everyone else, and in which the "goal" that drives people forward isn't the acquisition of wealth, power, or money but the driving force is betterment of mankind as a whole and increased knowledge and understanding. That in and of itself is very radical thinking. It creates this positive world in which you, the viewer, find yourself wanting to be a part of. To see a future where you don't have to worry about food, money, or illness and can instead focus on learning and helping others is very captivating. That's kind of the background of Star Trek in general. But let's talk specifically about the Star Trek from the 1960s.
Even though I LOVE Star Trek, I just cannot watch the original Star Trek. The problem has always been the low production value, I have a hard time getting past things like blocks of foam painted to look like rocks. Having been born in the mid 70s, I grew up in a world post Star Wars. This set a new standard for special effects in Sci-Fi. So when I try and watch the original Star Trek, I have a hard time. As such I've only seen a few episodes end to end. And yes, it's hard to judge an entire show based upon one or two episodes. I really should go back and sit down and watch the episodes.
Even though I haven't seen much of the original Star Trek, I have seen enough to know what I like and don't like. Starting at the top, I never cared for Kirk. He's portrayed as a "ladies man" which to me isn't what Sci-Fi is about. I don't watch Sci-Fi to watch someone "hit" on every sexy alien they find. Spock on the other hand, I always liked his cold hard logical aspect. Beyond the big two - I liked Scotty the engineer, although I felt his accent was a bit thick. Many of the other characters had less of an impression on me. I liked that Gene included different nationalities, races, and sexes in his future. Although the true impact of this is probably lost on me having grown up after the race and general equality movements of the 60s and 70s.
As for the technology of the show - some of the futuristic ideas have already become reality. If you compare the Star Trek communicator to a modern cell phone (in size, design, and function) you'll find they are nearly identical. We obviously don't have large star ships and faster than light space travel, but I would argue modern super computers probably exceed what is depicted in the show.
I guess to sum up, although the original Star Trek series isn't for me, it did lay the necessary groundwork for the future Star Trek series.
Wednesday, February 13, 2013
Project Dreamcast - Repair
As I said in my previous post, the Dreamcast I bought on eBay was listed as "broken." When I got the unit I plugged it in and turned it on. The system powers on and the welcome screen comes up. The controllers work as does the VMU. But the system will not read any discs; neither Dreamcast games nor music CDs. This is actually a very common problem with the Dreamcast - in fact it's probably the single biggest problem that happens to Dreamcasts. The lasers they used in the system tend to wear out quicker than other CD players and games systems.
Step one is always clean the laser lens. Very carefully use a Q-tip and rubbing alcohol to wipe the lens. You can also use compressed air as there is a second lens further down that you can't reach. Neither of these worked for me, so I moved onto the common "fix" found on the Internet. Every CD/DVD laser assembly has a trimmer that adjusts the power of the laser lens. Note, a lot of people call this a potentiometer, but the technical name is a trimmer, or sometimes a trimmer potentiometer, or even a trimpot. Here is a picture of the Dreamcast laser trimmer.
If you turn this trimmer clockwise you increase the power to the laser, counterclockwise to decrease the power. The idea is to increase the power to the laser just to the point where it reads discs. Increased power reduces the life of the laser, so this is at best a short-term fix. Some people report that counterclockwise worked for them, but this doesn't make any sense. Either way, you SLOWLY turn the trimmer clockwise and retest. This is a long slow process of increasing the trimmer, testing, increasing again, etc.
Following this process I got it to read music CDs every time. But game discs are another matter. I got it to periodically read game discs, but most of the time it failed. After several hours trying different settings, I decided to punt and try installing a new laser. I purchased a JVC SPU-3200 laser assembly. This is a functional replacement part for the Dreamcast. Here's a picture of the new laser.
Replacing the laser was surprisingly easy. There is one important task to remember when installing a new laser. To protect the laser against static electricity, there should be a solder ball on the bottom of the laser. You need to use a soldering iron to remove this solder ball. After doing this you can reassemble the Dreamcast and test your new laser.
With the new laser installed, I tried a music CD. It read the disc perfectly - this is good, I know the new lens is working. However, it still won't read game discs. At this point I'm not panicked. I honestly don't know if new laser assemblies ship calibrated or not, so all I might need to do is calibrate the laser. However, before I touch the trimmer on this new laser, I want to look at the rest of the GD-ROM drive circuitry. What if there is another problem that is preventing it from reading game discs? Next time I'll cover the continued effort to repair the Dreamcast.
Step one is always clean the laser lens. Very carefully use a Q-tip and rubbing alcohol to wipe the lens. You can also use compressed air as there is a second lens further down that you can't reach. Neither of these worked for me, so I moved onto the common "fix" found on the Internet. Every CD/DVD laser assembly has a trimmer that adjusts the power of the laser lens. Note, a lot of people call this a potentiometer, but the technical name is a trimmer, or sometimes a trimmer potentiometer, or even a trimpot. Here is a picture of the Dreamcast laser trimmer.
If you turn this trimmer clockwise you increase the power to the laser, counterclockwise to decrease the power. The idea is to increase the power to the laser just to the point where it reads discs. Increased power reduces the life of the laser, so this is at best a short-term fix. Some people report that counterclockwise worked for them, but this doesn't make any sense. Either way, you SLOWLY turn the trimmer clockwise and retest. This is a long slow process of increasing the trimmer, testing, increasing again, etc.
Following this process I got it to read music CDs every time. But game discs are another matter. I got it to periodically read game discs, but most of the time it failed. After several hours trying different settings, I decided to punt and try installing a new laser. I purchased a JVC SPU-3200 laser assembly. This is a functional replacement part for the Dreamcast. Here's a picture of the new laser.
Replacing the laser was surprisingly easy. There is one important task to remember when installing a new laser. To protect the laser against static electricity, there should be a solder ball on the bottom of the laser. You need to use a soldering iron to remove this solder ball. After doing this you can reassemble the Dreamcast and test your new laser.
With the new laser installed, I tried a music CD. It read the disc perfectly - this is good, I know the new lens is working. However, it still won't read game discs. At this point I'm not panicked. I honestly don't know if new laser assemblies ship calibrated or not, so all I might need to do is calibrate the laser. However, before I touch the trimmer on this new laser, I want to look at the rest of the GD-ROM drive circuitry. What if there is another problem that is preventing it from reading game discs? Next time I'll cover the continued effort to repair the Dreamcast.
Thursday, February 7, 2013
Project Dreamcast
After the success of Project Genesis and Project TG-16, I have my next project to work on - a Sega Dreamcast. I've never played a Dreamcast before - in fact I know very little about the system. What I do know is the console was probably one of the most underrated and overlooked video game consoles of all time. It was ahead of its time in many ways. The Dreamcast was the first console to offer built-in network and Internet connectivity, it was the first to offer progressive video output, the first 128-bit system, I believe it was the first to offer a keyboard and mouse, and it had a lot of unique titles not found on any other console. Add to that it was about half the price of competing systems. Unfortunately the console was short-lived.
I recently picked up a Dreamcast off eBay. I got the console, two controllers, a VMU, Unreal Tournament, and power and video cables all for $20 delivered. The reason the console was so cheap is because it's "broken." It may sound odd, but I'd actually rather get a broken Dreamcast than a working one. Why you might ask? Well fixing a console is as much fun as playing it in my opinion. And after fixing it up I'm going to mod the console to improve it and make it special and unique. I'll document the entire process here. Unlike Project Genesis and TG-16, I'm going to document this as I go. Both of those projects I completed them before making a single post. But this one I'll post as I go, which hopefully will help others to see how I go about trying to diagnose, repair, and mod the console.
Before I talk about the repair efforts, I wanted to give my impressions of the console. First, I am surprised by the size of the console. It's a very small console. Secondly, the controllers feel nicer than I was expecting. I especially like the analog thumbstick. It's been my opinion that most analog thumbsticks are stiff and/or move in a clunky manor. But the Dreamcasts thumbsticks are (pardon the expression) a dream!
Next time I'll get into the repair efforts on the console.
Thursday, January 24, 2013
Is my hard drive dying?
Recently at work a drive in a server machine had been causing problems, and sometimes even crashing the machine. When you reboot the machine, the BIOS reported a hard drive failure. So I ran a sector scan which came back with 0 bad sectors. I wasn't expecting that, I was for sure there would be a lot of bad sectors. Well it turns out, most newer hard drives employ a little technique to make you think the drive is still doing great when in fact it is dying. They have extra sectors on the hard drive which are held in reserve, there is no way for the operating system to access these sectors. When the hard drive detects a bad sector, it stops using that sector and replaces it with one of these reserved sectors. So to the outside world the drive is still running great, but internally the failures have begun.
It turns out there is a way to detect and track this. Newer hard drives have what is called S.M.A.R.T. (or Self-Monitoring, Analysis and Reporting Technology). Basically the drive tracks statistics about it's own operation; number of hours in use, number of reads and writes, etc. One of the stats it tracks is number of reallocated sectors. Checking the S.M.A.R.T. stats on the failing drive I found over 5,000 reallocated sectors. Indeed, the drive was failing.
So how do you read these stats? There are tons of free and commercial tools that read and display this info. I like Defraggler by Piriform. In addition to reading and displaying S.M.A.R.T. data it is a great disk defragger, and it's free!
Thursday, January 17, 2013
XBMC
For a while now I've been considering creating a Home Theater PC (HTPC). I've definitely been dragging my feet on this, there's no big rush here. I've even considered a Roku as a cheap box that will do 80% of what a HTPC does. A friend of mine said I should look into a free open-source piece of software called XBMC. Without even trying XBMC I brushed it off as something I wouldn't be interested in. Several weeks later, for some reason I decided to install it and give it a try. And I'm glad I did because I sorely misunderstood what XBMC is.
In short, XBMC is a media playing software for your TV (or computer). You provide it "media" and it "plays" that media on your TV. So what media can it play? Well here's where I was in the dark. I assumed there were two main types of media it would play.
- Pictures, music, videos, and DVDs on your network. It's very common for people to store these types of media on their computer or something like a NAS box. Whereas I do have some of this media, I don't want to watch it on my TV. I already have a computer and I can view it there.
- A TV tuner card for broadcast TV. Hook up an antenna and watch, pause, and record live TV. This is something that very much interests me, but I don't have a TV card yet.
That's what I *thought* XBMC did. And like I said, I don't need it for media on my network, and I don't have a TV tuner card. So I assumed XBMC was useless for me. Boy was I wrong! What I didn't know is XBMC has a third source of media - the Internet! There are dozens of official plugins and hundreds of unofficial plugins that grant you access to pretty much any video source on the Internet. You can view TV programs from major networks like ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, Spike, History Channel, MTV, SyFy, HGTV, etc. The list of channels, both broadcast and cable, surprised me. You can also view content from Internet sites like YouTube, Hulu, Amazon, VEVO, Revision3, etc. There is so much Internet content available through these plugins you could never watch it all. If you want to get rid of cable/satellite TV then you should seriously consider XBMC. Even without a TV tuner the amount of content you can watch is overwhelming.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)