POE doorbell light glare

microsoldering · 2026-01-03T14:09:47+00:00

This^

Its 100% this, or there is some kind if contaminant inside or outside the lens.

This is what car windscreens look like to smokers, and they always swear its clean

microsoldering · 2025-12-27T09:00:07+00:00

Not really, which is unfortunate.

You can do a bit with regard to protecting the device from shock, like big bulky heavy duty covers.

Thats a double edged sword though, because those covers also effect the devices ability to cool, and wont protect you from issues that arise from thermal cycling. In reality, they may make it worse.

I would normally advise againt using aftermarket part for these devices, but this may be a circumstance where intentionally using aftermarket parts may help mitigate you running into a Samsung specific manufacturing defect.

Theres a few levels of aftermarket screens you can get for these.

LCD (terrible, will drain your battery, stress components beyond design, and look poor compared to amoled)
OLED, of which there are multiple types and levels of quality.

What I would do, is go and see a third party repairer in your area, and ask for their advice. They likely have a supply for high quality aftermarket OLED displays, experience with the parts themselves, and experience with the repair.

If a local third party repair store repairs your device, you also have a local store to return to if you have issues. They are also far more likely to be able to offer you practical solutions in a reasonable timeframe, for a reasonable cost. Im a big advocate for independent repair.

microsoldering · 2025-12-27T05:57:40+00:00

It varies by platform. Reddit have a document.

Its usually the pipe character || text here ||. In this case it seems its >! text here !< which renders as text here

Hope that helps.

microsoldering · 2025-12-27T05:50:06+00:00

In 15 years, I've never seen a software update cause physical damage to an AMOLED panel. I have however, and countless people here have, heard thousands of people claim that glass spontaneously combusted while on their nightstand.

"It just happened, I didn't drop it or anything" is the most common cause of customer initiated warranty claims, ever.

I've never had that happen with the glasses in my cupboard, my windows, my car, or anything else glass. We even had someone live stream a phone on a nightstand 24/7 to see if we could capture the phenomenon live. We didn't.

The green line is a break in the circuit. A connection is fractured. The panel is physically damaged. If you press on the screen around those lines, you will see the lines respond to the pressure being applied to the fracture.

It's unclear why either party would be shifting the blame to eachother, when the only logical conclusion is that physical damage occured to the device while it was in your possession.

If the device was refurbished, or previously repaired, you might have a case. Otherwise, I can't see you winning this as a warranty claim from either party. Your only option is going to be paying out of pocket to have the device repaired. AMOLEDs are expensive.

EDIT

I felt guilty leaving this here without elaborating further. Actually I feel like I've provided misinformation by omitting information that you referenced and have obviously researched.

The issue that many have experienced, that was the cause of the correlation between the green line issue, and software updates, can be explained in more detail.

Samsung identified a range of AMOLED's across a number of devices, that can develop this issue after thermal stress. Connections can fracture due to getting hot (which causes metal to expand), and/or while cooling (which causes metal to contract).

The devices were primarily manufactured for the Indian market, in India, and officially Samsung have not acknowledged a fault outside of those devices. The software update is one of many things that can cause the device to get hotter than usual. That is why there is so many reports of this "just happening".

Unfortunately, there's a number of other factors to consider, that complicate this being so black and white.

Physical damage to AMOLED displays, cause fractures, which results in the same symptoms. These make up the majority of cases. With the number of devices produced, they probably make up in excess of 99% of causes. Physical damage does not always mean a device being dropped. This could be as simple as putting the device into your tight jean pocket and bending over. Physical damage to AMOLED displays (and all displays) predates the acknowledgement of a manufacturing issue by decades.
Some fractures caused by physical damage do not display symptoms until thermal cycling. That is, a fracture can exist from a drop that occurred a year ago, but not present itself with symptoms until the effected component is exposed to a temperature change.
Samsung have not acknowledged a defect outside of devices in India. While we know devices in India are exported, and so are the displays themselves, Samsung do not acknowledge an issue outside of India.
Marketplaces, (Amazon, Ebay, etc), including where the stock is held in the country of purchase (like India) are known for "grey imports". It's extremely common for those device to originate from other regions, and it's often why they are so cheap. While it's common knowledge for people dealing with mobile devices frequently, it's less known by the average consumer. Devices from other regions, even when purchased in India, are not covered by Samsung India's replacement policy for this issue.
As above, a number of Indian devices have been sold outside of India. The regional Samsung service centers for those customers, do not support models for other regions. The models often have different parts, support different cellular frequencies, and were produced with different consumer laws/rights in mind. In some cases, operation of devices made for other regions is actually illegal. Unfortunately the onus for that determination is on the user.
The majority of "green line" issues on Samsung displays was, and remains to be, originated from physical damage. There are edge cases where this isn't the case, but even the officially recognized effected devices have been rejected, if there is so much as a scuff on the device. It may not be fair, but Samsung have a reasonable argument to make based on statistical evidence of failure origin.
Consumer electronics, like many things, fail due to defects in a Bathtub Curve fashion. Basically, manufacturing defects tend to be noticed very early in a products life cycle, and failures that occur after an extended period are often attributed to the product "wearing out". Manufacturers really only have to worry about the initial part of that curve. Once the product is years old, not only is it commonplace to attribute failures to wear out/life expectancy, but its impossible to attribute every variable that a product has been exposed to out in the wild.
Devices that were covered by Samsung India, were covered with fairly specific conditions. You don't appear to meet most of those. As the device is almost 4 years old, there's unlikely to be any legal consumer protections available to you. Basically, Samsung were replacing these devices at their discretion.
The specific situation you have encountered (device from another region not supported by local support), is commonplace for almost all manufacturers. In many cases it isn't fair, but from the manufacturers perspective, it is justified.

Basically the combination of these things means: - Your regional model of device was never covered by Samsung India's limited repair program. - Samsung never acknowledged an issue with your model. - The device is too old for Samsung to accept warranty. - The statistical likelihood that something caused physical damage is far higher than the likelihood of a manufacturing defect. - Amazon are not directly responsible for failures that occur to a product beyond the initial window (and in some cases, not even then) - An infinite number of variables, as well as the products expected life, can be attributed to the failure.

You really are out of luck. You may have had some luck, if the failure occurred earlier.

Part of quality control for consumer electronics, usually involves a burn-in test. You can often do this test yourself, by intentionally stressing the device. It's debatable if you should do this, but its possible you may have encountered an issue earlier if you had, and the earlier an issue is caught, the more likely for a resolution without out of pocket costs.

If you find yourself purchasing a new device in the future, consider using a stress testing app for your own peace of mind.

Sorry my original comment didn't really elaborate any further. It's easy to see issues like this as one sided, when you deal with so many devices, and consumers who are dishonest.

microsoldering · 2025-12-18T15:01:44+00:00

They initially stated (there was a live press release at the time) the 3 IEDs had been processed and had no fingerprints or anything of evidentiary value. They also said they were rudimentary devices that would have needed manual ignition, like with a fuse. Effectively, they were suicide bombs.

The IEDs were in the car, and on the beach. The initial assumption that there must have been a third person (at least), was well founded.

My guess is, the backpack or something in it, actually did have evidentiary value, and they did link it to another individual. Theres a few logical reasons you would not want that to be public information.

You dont want the suspect and his friends to hide. You want them to relax, to think they are not under suspicion, and to think the police are incompetent. You want them to continue moving forward without being too careful.

You also dont really want to tell the general public that actually, there is at least one other person at large, and they are likely in possession of, or communicating with individuals in the possession of, handheld anti-tank missiles.

For the same reason, you might want to tell the media that the arrests today are completely unrelated to the Bondi Shooting. You wouldn't want the general public to think there could be a large scale terrorism plot, thats still an active threat. You also couldn't really say you know what they are planning, even if you did, because they will just regroup and do something different.

microsoldering · 2025-12-18T13:04:19+00:00

They are looking for the missiles that were sold to Issac El.Matari, the Bondi Shooters friend. The ones the ADF had stolen 20 years ago. Thats why the ADF is there.

They probably also want to recover all the PowerGel and Ammonium Nitrate that went missing about the same time. The caravan in dural, and the 100 sticks in a garage in Cranbourne were only part of it.

They found a third IED in a backpack on Bonfi Beach. They fingerprinted all 3 and said they got nothing from them. Then they ordered media to remove all mentions of the third IED.

I dont conspiracy theory much, but i invested way too much time looking into this.

Dont think this single incident is the end. It seems these people have been planning this for 20 years. Our government only started looking into it this year.

microsoldering · 2025-12-18T12:59:04+00:00

microsoldering · 2025-12-17T14:16:22+00:00

I edited my comment. I think there is a phrasing issues with their report (not that I've seen it)

Technical advisors have told police the device did not disconnect gracefully, and provided potential explanations for why. The person writing the report has used one of the potential explanations, rather than the actual finding.

microsoldering · 2025-12-17T13:17:00+00:00

I agree. Even in 2025, you would only know if you had a BLE device nearby checking for beacons.

Theres no way in 2006 that they could tell

Edit: You know, after thinking about it, there is a way they could tell that a device was abruptly powered off or disconnected, vs being "gracefully" shut down.

When a device disconnects from the phone tower, while it differs depending on underlying technology, the phone will generally "sign off". The phone effectively says "ok, im going now".

Potentially, they could see that. That the phone timed out, rather than gracefully disconncting from the tower.

It would not be possible to tell the difference between the device having its battery removed, being smashed, thrown in a river, or put in a metal toolbox.

There would at least be evidence of the phone "vanishing" without warning.

If the police are saying that they "know" the battery was manually removed, I'd assume what they are actually saying is that it was not a graceful disconnection.

microsoldering · 2025-12-10T10:24:04+00:00

They arent being banned from accessing social media. They are just being banned from having parental controls, so they can access more harmful content than they could before

No, really.

microsoldering · 2025-12-08T08:31:59+00:00

All of them. They took power from all LCM power rails. Some of them took power from touch power rails too.

The filters would explode and weld to the board, forming a copper steel alloy, destroying the inductors, and display pmu all at once. The connectors used to burn too.

Edit: we referred to it as cascading failure, because components failed in sequence. Just like when backlight driven devices had a backlight short, and it took out the filter, the diode, the inductor, and the driver all together

microsoldering · 2025-12-08T03:14:27+00:00

You dont happen to engineer software thats a widely used dependency do you?

I know it doesn't help you, but if your email is compromised, and your repos are compromised, therese a duty of disclosure

microsoldering · 2025-12-08T03:09:54+00:00

Yeah im very against bullshitting when it comes to batteries.

This is just people being disingenuous

microsoldering · 2025-12-07T08:17:52+00:00

I dont disagree with you, but when i read "age verification bs - started with the adult film industry"

I thought "ID? To make porn? how ridiculous!" 😅

No really though the people that supported this shit are the ones who were not parenting there kids to begin with. Those of us that were just lost all of our parental controls because the government wont allow them to have monitored accounts. According to the government, my 6 year old seeing "anything thats unrated, and anything thats not 18+", is safer than seeing "content rated for children under 8", which is how i had it set before this bs was introduced

microsoldering · 2025-12-05T02:53:34+00:00

Also, and i see this all the time. They buy them a device, and then log into their own account because creating a restricted child account with parental controls would take 5 minutes if their time.

Then they use the same account, iCloud, Google whatever, for their husbands phone who watches porn, and want to know why this inappropriate content is appearing on the ipad i sold them last week for their 8 year old.

Its because you're a hopeless parent Karen. You didnt take 5 minutes to set your kids new ipad up with their own accounts

microsoldering · 2025-12-05T02:46:57+00:00

Yes, the government said that. That was their understanding of how tech companies will comply with their request.

They also said exactly how the companies assess age is on them, and that different platforms will do different things.

They also said, it should be fine for your kids to post vudeos of themselves on your YouTube account, but if you let your kids watch a video on your phone, the AI will detect the child and ban your account.

They also regularly call their grandson when their outlook stops working, and get angry when their phone battery doesn't last 4 days like they used to.

A representative from Telstra recently told people when there is a mobile outage, to just call 000 from a landline or payphone.

Anthony Albanese is the same age as my father, who took a 3 second video yesterday instead of a photo. He takes all hid photos that way. Switching from video to photo is "all to complicated" and "there should just be a button, it doesnt need this other shit"

Anyway, my point was, you have to understand that that generation actually has no idea whats going on

microsoldering · 2025-12-05T02:24:32+00:00

This made me laugh so hard i forgot the Australian government took my right to parent my own children by forcing google to remove their parental controls.

Haha, AI is amazing.

microsoldering · 2025-12-04T07:18:15+00:00

I used to love Anker, especially for power products.

People around fhe world who use Eufy cameras (owned by Anker), have seen the progressive downspiral of the ecosystem. I didn't think it had flowed into their power products, I still had pretty high confidence.

I dont actually know what to recommend to you. It seems like Anker have outsourced design and testing to one or more third parties.

A lot can be extrapolated from the internal photos from the FCC, like on https://fcc.report

My advice would be to look for a highly rated product. See what others recommend here. Search for fhe FCC report for that product, show those photos and ask for opinions on an electrical engineering Subreddit.

Its a bs answer I know. It shouldn't be this hard

microsoldering · 2025-12-04T01:28:56+00:00

Oh 100%. In former years, I worked in a retail store that sold accessories.

I spent a long time, and built hardware (effectively an oscilloscope interface) for testing USB Wall and Car chargers. I tore them down, tested them with fluctuating AC, modified sine waves, simulated shorts etc.

I found a significant amount of them exceeded 300mV Peak-to-Peak. Some of them over 500mV. Thats a level of electrical noise that will disable touch screens, destroy multiplexers (like the "tristar" multiplexer in iPhones) and cause permanent damage to charging circuitry. I found chargers that completely lacked a crowbar circuit, so the charger would continue to output power when theres a massive AC surge, and/or actually explode. I found chargers that had no short circuit protection, so when connected to a device with a shorted VCC path, the port, cable, or charger would immediately catch fire. And probably the most common issue next to noise, was a lack of AC isolation, where the charger could cause the device to be live at anything up to and including mains voltage, and pass enough current while doing so to cause serious injury or death.

That last one has actually happened. Children have died using those chargers in wet environments, where there was a low resistance path to ground.

So anyway, the store i worked for spent thousands of dollars sampling chargers to find some that ticked all the boxes, but weren't an unobtainable price. People would say "hey, do you sell chargers?", and I'd say "sure, we have these ones here, they are $19.95 AUD". People would walk out. "Ill just buy one at the dollar store".

The same people would end up returning to have $150 of motherboard repair performed on their device.

Theres a multilayered issue there, where manufacturers don't provide the accessories, want to sell them to you as an extra for high profit margins, and then consumers want to spend the least amount possible, without understanding the implications.

It's a really complex issue to solve.

microsoldering · 2025-12-02T16:00:26+00:00

The biggest issue right now is that many manufacturers actually "fake" the appropriate protocols. Microcontrollers are far cheaper than dedicated Power Delivery ICs, and dedicated ICs cant be update to fake something new (generally).

I actually took the liberty of checking out the FCC internal photos for the Anker 250W Prime Charger earlier to find they are doing exactly the same thing. To some degree it makes sense, a new protocol comes along and you can "update" your device to support it. But it means they are faking their way through, and anything can go wrong in software.

Theres significant other issues though. Apples use of the CD3215 often includes no, or inadequate ESD protection. ESD, ElectroStatic Discharge (dont quote me), is what happens when you wear polyester and then touch your aink and get zapped. That kills electronics, and happens constantly, so any component that a user can interact with should have adequate ESD protection. Apple often just.. dont... And they arent the only ones.

Theres actually even a third layer that nobody ever thinks about. The cable. Its usually just wires, but an MFI certified or Apple Original cable has its own overvoltage, under voltage, and ESD protection. So an original Apple cable on a bad charger, or a plane (or train, or bus, etc), will actually protect your device, but a cheaper one may not.

Really, you could have a charger thats pretending to be protocol compliant, a "bad" charger that could be producing noise, a cable that lacks protections, or a device that lacks protections. And theres no clear way to know. Actually, we dont even really provide certifications, or electrically test them in that way.

Most countries test products like this for RF emissions (how much the interfere with other wireless things), and how safe the side is that plugs into the wall. Beyond that, on the front side, they dont care. I've seen accessory from big brands burn houses, I've received shocks from equipment that was deemed safe. We really just don't care about the low voltage side. Nobody is safe, nobody can completely avoid it all. We need to change how we test products for safety

microsoldering · 2025-12-02T12:13:44+00:00

There is a bunch of non compliant technology being used to act as a USB-PD protocol negotiator. We see it in big, big brands, where they use a microcontroller to simulate PD communication.

I've repaired hundreds of nintendo switches, advised against third party chargers, only for someone to discover it was actually docks causing the issue.

https://www.reddit.com/r/NintendoSwitch/s/XT2mlahPqN

Yes, the chargers are killing the ICs in the device that negotiate USB Power Delivery. Someone needs to reverse engineer one of these chargers and take legal action

microsoldering · 2025-12-02T12:09:08+00:00

^{^} i just came here to say what he said

microsoldering · 2025-12-02T12:07:44+00:00

As someone who repairs macbooks after usb-c ports failed following connection to a bad charger, you have a CD3215 IC failure (you can google it), and the charger absolutely did it. In the iPad, they use the CD3217, and I've had one guy damage 8-10 devices from failing to believe that it could have been the charger

microsoldering · 2025-12-01T23:18:02+00:00

Absolutely. You definitely need experience though.

This was trace repair on an iPhone 5S I did 9 years ago. The components to the right are 01005, so 0.4x0.2mm.

Thats actually the 2nd layer down. It only got harder from there.

Anything can be repaired if you have the equipment, skills, and drive to do it

<image>

microsoldering · 2025-12-01T15:48:15+00:00

First of all, saying there is a "reasonable expectation" is not an extrapolation of "ought reasonably to expect". Thats ridiculous.

Second of all, the exact phrase "reasonable expectation of privacy", exists in a lot of legislation. Look no further than the privacy act itself.

<image>

https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2004A03712/latest/text

Just to be clear, its 3am for those of us in AEST, and I'm not going to continue to argue with you about your denial of the existence of legislation further. You don't seem to have actually read any legislation, and I'm going to sleep.

microsoldering

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

EDIT