|
|
Post by 509Paul on Feb 2, 2016 14:14:00 GMT -5
The XMC-1 front OLED screen on my unit has had an issue with the display flickering once every 10 minutes or so like it is refreshing or something. Has anyone else noticed this issue on their units? The 3.1a firmware update had no effect on the strange issue.
|
|
|
|
Post by routlaw on Feb 2, 2016 14:21:14 GMT -5
No, but my first XMC-1 had a corrupted display a long vertical line off to the right side and full bore tilt bright which was distracting to say the least. I didn't notice any flicker though. You might try doing a factory reset but only after saving your setup to a USB thumb drive so you can reinstate it later.
Good luck.
|
|
KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,002
|
Post by KeithL on Feb 2, 2016 14:26:07 GMT -5
It isn't a flicker.
The OLED screen on the XMC-1 actually shifts a few pixels one way or another every several minutes - it's a screen saver to prevent burn-in.
If you happen to catch it out of the corner of your eye it looks like a flicker.
|
|
|
|
Post by 509Paul on Feb 2, 2016 14:33:08 GMT -5
That would possibly explain what I see the display doing. The display seems to refresh everything quickly starting from the top and makes it look like a flicker. I only notice it because the unit sits in my field of view and catches my eye each time it happens in a darkened room.
|
|
LCSeminole
Global Moderator
Res firma mitescere nescit.
Posts: 20,510
|
Post by LCSeminole on Feb 2, 2016 18:56:11 GMT -5
I've not noticed this screen saver shift as I have the "Brightness" set at 0%. Now I'm curious and I'm going to set it to 100% just so I can see if I notice it. I wasn't even aware that "burn-in" can occur on an OLED. Learned something new today I suppose.
|
|
|
|
Post by sycraft on Feb 3, 2016 12:56:02 GMT -5
I've not noticed this screen saver shift as I have the "Brightness" set at 0%. Now I'm curious and I'm going to set it to 100% just so I can see if I notice it. I wasn't even aware that "burn-in" can occur on an OLED. Learned something new today I suppose. It is a problem for any emissive technology. When something emits light, that process will cause it to lose brightness over time. I don't know of any light technology this isn't true for. So when you have a blocking technology, like LCD or DLP, where you have an overall light that is on at a consistent level and then you use something to block it, no problems. The backlight degrades at a uniform rate, and you compensate by increasing the level. However when you have individual elements emitting light, like an CRT or OLED, the element emitting the light will dim, and the elements not emitting light will not. Thus having a static image will cause burn in, after enough time. |
|
|
|
Post by Axis on Feb 3, 2016 13:52:08 GMT -5
Did you know that it can take a single photon of light up to 1 million years to travel from the core of our sun to the surface.
|
|
|
|
Post by jmilton on Feb 3, 2016 14:02:15 GMT -5
Did you know that it can take a single photon of light up to 1 million years to travel from the core of our sun to the surface. So a photon traveling at the speed of light takes a million years to traverse half the diameter of the Sun? "Don't believe everything you read on the internet!" - Abraham Lincoln  |
|
|
|
Post by Axis on Feb 3, 2016 14:14:19 GMT -5
Did you know that it can take a single photon of light up to 1 million years to travel from the core of our sun to the surface. So a photon traveling at the speed of light takes a million years to traverse half the diameter of the Sun? "Don't believe everything you read on the internet!" - Abraham Lincoln That poor little photon never gets a chance. It bounces around in there. It's true. It only takes about eight minutes once it breaks free to reach the earth but it is a hard long battle for it to get out of there. |
|
|
|
Post by Chuck Elliot on Feb 3, 2016 14:22:23 GMT -5
So a photon traveling at the speed of light takes a million years to traverse half the diameter of the Sun? "Don't believe everything you read on the internet!" - Abraham Lincoln That poor little photon never gets a chance. It bounces around in there. It's true. It only takes about eight minutes once it breaks free to reach the earth but it is a hard long battle for it to get out of there. See: Ask a Mathematician |
|
|
|
Post by Talley on Feb 3, 2016 14:31:27 GMT -5
I keep mine off. Never noticed it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Axis on Feb 3, 2016 14:34:13 GMT -5
I like this one from NASA "Ask the Space Scientist" It is based according to the famous 'drunkard's walk' problem.  image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/ask/a11354.htmlHow long does it take light to get out from the inside of the Sun? According to the famous 'drunkard's walk' problem, the distance a drunk, making random left and right turns, gets from the lamp post is his typical step size times the square root of the number of steps he takes. For the sun, we know how far we want to go to get out....696,000 kilometers, we just need to know how far a photon travels between emission and absorption, and how long this step takes. This requires a bit of physics! The interior of the sun is a seathing plasma with a central density of over 100 grams/cc. The atoms, mostly hydrogen, are fully stripped of electrons so that the particle density is 10^26 protons per cubic centimeter. That means that the typical distance between protons or electrons is about (10^26)^1/3 = 2 x 10^-9 centimeters. The actual 'mean free path' for radiation is closer to 1 centimeter after electromagnetic effects are included. Light travels this distance in about 3 x 10^-11 seconds. Very approximately, this means that to travel the radius of the Sun, a photon will have to take (696,000 kilometers/1 centimeter)^2 = 5 x 10^21 steps. This will take, 5x10^21 x 3 x10^-11 = 1.5 x 10^11 seconds or since there are 3.1 x 10^7 seconds in a year, you get about 4,000 years. Some textbooks refer to 'hundreds of thousands of years' or even 'several million years' depending on what is assumed for the mean free patch. Also, the interior of the sun is not at constant density so that the steps taken in the outer half of the sun are much larger than in the deep interior where the densities are highest. Note that if you estimate a value for the mean free path that is a factor of three smaller than 1 centimeter, the time increases a factor of 10! Typical uncertainties based on 'order of magnitude' estimation can lead to travel times 100 times longer or more. Most astronomers are not too interested in this number and forgo trying to pin it down exactly because it does not impact any phenomena we measure with the exception of the properties of the core region right now. These estimates show that the emission of light at the surface can lag the production of light at the core by up to 1 million years. The point of all this is that it takes a LONG time for light to leave the sun's interior!! |
|
|
|
Post by 509Paul on Feb 3, 2016 14:45:51 GMT -5
...but how many starburst can you eat before that photon blinds you during the morning commute?
|
|
|
|
Post by jmilton on Feb 3, 2016 14:47:04 GMT -5
"After being created in a fusion event in the core, the first thing a fresh batch of photons does is get broken up into hundreds of lower energy photons. Talking about how long a photon does anything in the Sun for more than around one nanosecond is a little misleading, because within that time almost every photon in the Sun has been broken apart and/or combined with other photons, leaving them mixed together. The first tiniest bit of the energy of a photon generated in the core gets to the surface within a couple minutes, and is carried away by photons created there. The many-thousands-of years statistic is useful in that it expresses when about half of a photon’s original energy is bled into space. The last of the photon’s energy is never completely released into space (it’s a “last toothpaste in the tube” sort of thing)." ----- (Emphasis added for... emphasis)  |
|
|
|
Post by jmilton on Feb 3, 2016 15:21:28 GMT -5
...wait just a minute! Is this photon thing just a rabbit trail that distracts us from the flickering OLED issue?
Comparing the XMC-1 to the power of the Sun is going a bit too far!
|
|
bootman
Emo VIPs 
Typing useless posts on internet forums....
Posts: 9,358
|
Post by bootman on Feb 3, 2016 15:39:25 GMT -5
...wait just a minute! Is this photon thing just a rabbit trail that distracts us from the flickering OLED issue? Comparing the XMC-1 to the power of the Sun is going a bit too far! The XMC is ...Nothing like the Sun. |
|
|
|
Post by 509Paul on Feb 3, 2016 16:17:33 GMT -5
XMC-1 Plasma Edition with mini internal fusion reactors!
|
|
|
|
Post by Axis on Feb 3, 2016 16:41:05 GMT -5
It's not a flicker. It's a screen saver. Now that, that is settled. I would like to invite everyone over to the 'All That Jazz/Classical' thread that bluemeanies started. We have free beer and some great Jazz going on over there. Classical music is also welcome. Like the Beverly Hillbillies said "Sit a spell, take your shoes off" Don't forget there is free beer and we are having a wet t-shirt contest with some very lovely gals later. "Y'all come back now, y'hear?". |
|
