Klaus Pras

Camps & Events · REPS VR · Training · Upcoming Camps · QBR MINI CAMP | KRUM, TX Date: Sunday, February 20, 2022 2021 Holiday Skills Camp - DFW

Despite this, some fans take this to mean that Norman is his first name Despite the characters stating they never learned Kramer's first name until season six, Newman's first name is never given, ever

A little paint thinner around the magnet should take care of the adhesive It usual works on double sided tapes it won't hurt the phone as long

How to disassemble AirPods case is how nightmares for people who do tech repair start. Apple AirPods are well known for use of excessive glue and low repairability scores. The only thing harder than taking AirPods apart is putting AirPods back together.

Because of all the adhesive, opening AirPods without ruining them is almost impossible. Major damage is unavoidable. If your AirPods or AirPods Pro break, the only real option is a replacement. This is, of course, hard on your wallet and also the environment.

Not all hope is lost for broken AirPods. They are a favorite for many earphone users. Apple offers repair and replacement services for all its customers. There is Apple’s One Year Warranty and AppleCare+ for accidental damage.

All that aside, nothing is ever really completely secret to the public. Especially a popular and much loved AirPod case design. So here we have it, how to disassemble an AirPods case. We’ll be covering AirPods, AirPods 3, and AirPods Pro.

It can be difficult to fix an AirPod case at home. Maybe your AirPod case won’t close or you want to know what happens when you drop an AirPod case. Whatever the reason, disassembling AirPod cases are one of few ways to fix a broken AirPod case.

Learning how to disassemble your AirPods case allows you to see inside the case. Now you can change the battery without having to replace the whole case. You can dry a circuit board that has corroded from water damage.

Whatever the reason, a little word of caution. AirPod cases do get damaged when you disassemble them and might never work the same again. There will be scratches and deep divots from the tools used to pop them open. Luckily, some of the AirPod case scratches can be fixed.

For AirPods 3 and AirPods Pro, we’ll also be warping the case to crack the adhesive. Beware of the problems that might follow from disassembling your AirPod case.

Now, for the tools that you will need.

To disassemble an AirPods case will need a couple of tools. For some, you can find alternatives at home,

Have you have gathered all your supplies? Then move on to our step-by-step guide on how to disassemble your AirPods case below. Good luck.

Open your AirPods case lid and behold the beauty of your AirPods. You might want to take them out for the next part. There are 2 fixed points on the left and right sides of the case that need to be propped open.

With your spudger or pry tool, wedge the edge into the case seam. When you have wedged the edge in, work it around the rim of the AirPods case to loosen it.

If the case will not open enough for the tool, use a vice and clamp the sides on the AirPod case. Slowly tighten the vice until the case has warped enough for a pry tool to get in. Wriggle it around until the case loosens.

Loosen the edge of the case enough to allow the thin tip tweezers to fit in the front of the case. This will be where you usually open the case. Wedge the thin tip tweezers in and use the edge as leverage to lift the AirPods dock out.

If your goal is to minimize damage, you can make a small shielding plate. Wedge the shielding plate in with the thin tip tweezers. Rest the tweezers on this shield plate when you leverage the dock out to protect the plastic rim of the case.

When the AirPod dock has popped up a bit, use your tools to lift from the left and right sides. Be careful not to damage the connector cable that comes out. Disconnect these from the AirPod dock.

Inside the case, you will see your AirPods battery glued to the AirPod case. Take a little bit of isopropyl alcohol and drip it where the battery is attached to the charging case. This will dissolve and loosen the adhesive. Use your prying tool and separate the battery from the back of the charging case.

As you pry the battery away from the case wall, you will see that there is a connector cable from the battery to the case. With your thin tip tweezers, disconnect the cable from the charging case and take out the battery. When you lift away the battery, the connector cable will still be attached to the battery.

To remove the AirPods lid, use the heat gun on the section that attaches the lid to the case. Or keep a heating pad on the back of the case. The heat gun/heating pad will loosen the adhesive keeping the two together.  After about 20 seconds, use your pliers to pry the lid off.

The lid is on tight and this step will need some strength. Don’t be afraid to really get in there. This is, of course, not the way to fix an AirPod case lid.

To take out the last inner frame, heat the case with the heat gun. Wriggle it loose all along the seam of the inner frame with the tweezers and prying tool. Use some alcohol to loosen the adhesive and pull with your pliers until the inner frame comes out.

Reapply heat and alcohol as needed to loosen the adhesive until the inner frame pulls out.

This inner frame will expose the logic board and charging port. If you own a wireless charging case, there will also be a fragile wire coil on the back wall of the case.

You should now have all the separated components of an AirPods case. Once everything is exposed, you finally get to behold the wonders of technology. It’s crazy how much tech can be put into such a small space.

This is how corroded logic boards are fixed but there are better, less destructive ways to fix an AirPod case that got wet.

Disassembling AirPods 3 or AirPods Pro case follow largely the same steps as AirPods 2. The tools for disassembling them will also be the same. There are some small differences that we’ll show you how to deal with during our step-by-step guide.

To get to the inside of AirPods 3 and AirPods Pro require a bit more force than with AirPods. Using the vice, clamp the AirPods case on the left and right sides and slowly increase the pressure. Do this until the case starts to warp.

This breaks through the adhesive and pops open on the seam of the case.

Wedge your spudger in the space that opened from the warping. Jimmy the spudger around the seam, loosening the edges. To minimize damage, use/create a small shielding plate.

When there is enough space, use the thin tip tweezers and spudger to leverage up the bundle until it comes out. If need be, leave a heating pack on the case. This will help loosen the adhesive and make the plastic a little more malleable.

Don’t do this for too long. Heat can be dangerous near batteries and cause permanent damage.

Lift the inside of the case out until the bottom connector cables are visible. With thin tip tweezers, disconnect the connector cables from the logic board bundle. The bundle is a black frame with batteries glued to the side and a logic board lodged between them.

The AirPod earphone holder can be disconnected and lifted from the black frame. The only thing left in the case tethered to the back wall will be a fragile wire coil. This coil allows AirPods 3 and AirPods Pro to have wireless charging.

You should now have a disassembled AirPod 3 or AirPod Pro.

And that’s how to disassemble an AirPod case. Not exactly easy but it’s done. It’s always handy to know how certain things are built and how to fix them, if possible. Like fixing a loose AirPod case.

AirPods aren’t exactly known for their repairability but do make up for it in sheer quality. For those parts that have died and gone beyond, there are replacement options available. For issues like dead batteries or waterlogged logic boards, knowing how to disassemble your AirPod case can be the last and only option.

Prevention is the best cure and that’s where we come in to protect your AirPod cases. Our AirPod cases support wireless charging, have 360-degree protection, and sport high-quality prints. These glossy prints never fade.

Unlocking BLM: First and foremost you need to have a Level 30 Thaumaturge , and have completed the L30 THM class quest, “Facing your Demons” After doing this you can unlock the actual quest to become a Black Mage, “Taking the Black” You can get the quest at the usual place, Ul'dah – Steps of Nald by Yayake

• Unplug the device before cleaning.
• Use a lint-free cloth slightly dampened with soap and water.
• Don't spray cleaners directly onto the device.
• Avoid aerosol sprays and cleaning solutions that contain bleach or abrasives.

Subodh Kumar Ray, son of Shri Mewa Lal Ray, resident of Village Keshopur, Police Station Vaishali, District Vaishali at Hajipur.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. The Principal Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3. The Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna through its Chairman, 15, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Bailey Road, Patna.

4. The Secretary, Bihar Public Service Commission, 15, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Bailey Road, Patna.

5. The Special Secretary-cum- Examination Controller, Bihar Public Service Commission, 15, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Bailey Road, Patna.

6. Priyanka Kumari, D/O Shri Satyendra Kumar, R/O village Ekray, PO Ekadha, P.S. Ariyari, District Sheikhpura.

7.Jai Prakash Verma, S/o Sri Shiv Narayan Prasad, Vill- Bhurkunda, PO Ankuri, P.S. Goh, District Aurangabad.

8. Pooja Bharti, D/O Shri Gauri Shankar Singh, Sinha Sadan, Hanuman Path, Village- Tilkamanjhi, Bhagalpur.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Uday Prakash Sharma, Adv.

For the Respondents No. 6 & 8: Mr. Kumar Alok, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH CAV JUDGMENT Date: 06-08-2021 The instant case has been taken up for consideration through the mode of Video conferencing in view of the prevailing situation on account of COVID 19 Pandemic, requiring social distancing.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for directing the respondents to declare the petitioner as a successful candidate in the Mains (written) examination in connection with Advertisement no. 42 of 2011 on the ground that though he has secured 498 marks, three other candidates having lesser marks have been declared successful whereafter, they have been called for interview and have also been finally selected as against the post of Assistant Prosecution Officer.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a law graduate and is a practicing Advocate at the Civil Court, Hajipur. An advertisement no. 42 of 2011 was published by the B.P.S.C. on 19.10.2011 for making appointment on a total number of 80 posts of Assistant Prosecution Officer. The 3 petitioner is stated to be belonging to the backward class category and as far as the backward class category is concerned, 10 posts had been earmarked for the said category and two posts had been assigned for the backward class ladies category. The petitioner is stated to have applied for the post of Assistant Prosecution Officer under the backward class category, where- after the Admit card was issued to him and then the Preliminary competitive examination was held on 23.03.2019, in which the petitioner had qualified. The petitioner had appeared in the mains (written) examination, which was held in between 02.02.2015 to 06.02.2015 and is stated to have performed very well. However, when the result of the Assistant Prosecution Officer, Mains (Written) competitive examination was published by the competent authority of the respondent Commission on 07.04.2017, the petitioner did not find his name amongst the list of successful candidates, though he had secured 498 marks.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Annexure-8 to the writ petition is the list of candidates finally selected under the backward class category, from which it is apparent that three candidates namely Puja Bharti, Jai Prakash Verma and Priyanka Kumari, though have got lesser marks than the petitioner in the Mains (written ) 4 competitive examination, however, the petitioner has been illegally not considered successful in the main (written) examination despite having obtained 498 marks i.e. more than the marks obtained by the said three candidates, hence, the respondents are required to be directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Assistant Prosecution Officer.

5. Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as "the Commission"), Shri P.N. Shahi, assisted by Shri Sanjay Pandey, Advocate, has submitted that an advertisement bearing Advertisement No. 42 of 2011 was published by the respondent Commission on 19.10.2011, pursuant to the requisition letter no. 10457 dated 27.12.2010 of the Home Department, Government of Bihar. The last date of submission of form was fixed as 17.11.2011. The learned Senior counsel for the respondent Commission, without going into the details of the case has directly sought to address the issue involved in the present case and has submitted that the petitioner could not be declared successful in the written examination because he had secured 498 marks, which is less than the cut-off marks i.e. 503, fixed for his reservation category i.e. the backward class category 5 (05), hence he was not called for interview and this fact would be apparent from Annexure-5 to the writ petition, which clearly mentions the cut-off marks for the backward class category to be 503, as far as the Maims (written) examination is concerned. The learned counsel for the respondent Commission has further submitted that the final result was published on 14.6.2017, after the interview was conducted and the final merit list was prepared, whereafter recommendations of successful candidates were sent to the department concerned, vide Commission's letter dated 19.07.2017, however, 5 vacancies (BC-03 and BCL-02) remained vacant due to unavailability of suitable candidates. Thereafter, appointments have been made and now the selection process is over. It is also submitted that all the women candidates of reserved category i.e. the backward categories are entitled to avail the benefit of reservation under the B.C. ladies category, as per the letter of the General Administration Department, Government of Bihar dated 19.8.2013. Since, the cut-off marks for the Mains (written) examination qua the B.C. ladies category had been fixed at 483, the aforesaid two ladies candidates namely Puja Bharti and Priyanka Kumari, having secured 490 and 485 marks respectively, had got the benefit of reservation under the B.C. ladies category. The other candidate 6 namely Shri Jai Prakash Verma is a disabled category candidates (OH), who has been declared successful in the Mains (written) examination upon having got the benefit of reservation under the disability category for which the cut-off marks was fixed as 476 and he had obtained 494 marks.

6. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Bihar Public Service Commission, has also referred to the supplementary counter affidavit filed in the present case to further elaborate and clarify the legal and factual aspect of the matter. It is stated that the General Administrative Department, Bihar vide letter dated 19.08.2013 has clarified that all the Female (Woman) candidates of SC, ST, EBC & BC category are included in the backward class women (female) category. In fact, as per the Reservation policy of the State Government, contained in letter dated 03.09.2002 (Annexure-G to the supplementary counter affidavit), the percentage of reservation among the different reservation categories is as follows:-

7. It is submitted that all the Female candidates of SC, ST, EBC & BC category are entitled to exercise the benefit of their respective reservation categories including the reservation of BCL as per the circumstances during the selection in the light of the aforesaid policy of the Government and all the candidates included in the final merit list are considered to be Unreserved Category candidates first and if a candidate does not get a post under the Unreserved Category, by dint of his/her merit, then he /she is considered for reservation and allotment is made against the vacancies of his/her respective reservation category.

8. It is also submitted that letter No. 11364, dated 04.09.2017 of the General Administration Department, Bihar prescribes provision/process regarding allotment of vacancies. Clause -5(i) of this letter prescribes that the vacancies of open merit under vertical reservation of unreserved category will be filled up first and then other (horizontal) reservation like 3% of Disabled, 2% of Freedom fighter and 35% of Female. Clause 5

(ii) of letter dated 04.09.2017 prescribes that the vacancies of reserved category (SC, ST, EBC, BC, BCL) under vertical 8 reservation of Unreserved Category will be filled up first; and then other horizontal reservation like 3% of Disabled, 2% of Freedom fighter and 35% of Female will be filled. It is stated that the qualifying marks and cut off marks are different matters. The qualifying marks which has been fixed by the State Govt. vide para-7 of its letter dated 16.07.2007 (Annexure-H to the supplementary counter affidavit) is as follows:-

9. The learned Senior counsel for the Commission has further submitted that the cut off marks is the marks which is fixed after reservation category wise selection of a particular examination. The cut off marks come out automatically as soon as selection for a particular reservation category is done up to the last merit position in context of vacancy of that particular reservation category in the light of the provisions made vide letter no. 2374, dated 16.07.2007. The marks of the last candidate on that particular last merit position of that reservation category becomes the cut off marks of reservation category as the selection ends for a particular examination. It is submitted 9 that all the selections are being made in the light of existing Reservation Policy of the State, as per the provisions contained in the Reservation in Vacancy of Posts & Services of Bihar Act (For Schedule caste, schedule Tribes and other Backward Classes), 1991 and in light of the amended rules framed by the State from time to time in this regard. Section-4(3) of the Reservation in Vacancy of Posts & Services of Bihar Act (For Schedule Caste, Schedule Tribes and other Backward Classes), 1991 provides that a candidate of reserved category, who is selected by virtue of his/her merit, will be counted under 50% vacancy of unreserved category and not against the vacancies of reserved category.

10. It is further submitted that the selection has been made taking into consideration the respective merit of the candidates and availability of reservation category wise vacancies in the concerned categories. If a candidate is having higher merit position and vacancy is available at that particular merit position of a candidate in the Unreserved Category, then his/her candidature will be allotted against that vacancy of the post but if he/ she does not get a post in the Unreserved Category with respect to his/her merit position under the general category then the candidature of such a candidate will be 10 considered against the vacancy of his/her respective reservation category, in which vacancy is available. If vacancy is available in their respective reservation category, then the candidate is allotted against this vacancy.

11. The Ld. Sr. Counsel for the respondent Commission has also contended that all the Woman candidates of reserved categories come under the BCL (06) category as per the Letter of the General Administration Department, Bihar dated 19.08.2013. Now coming back to the present case, it has been submitted that the respondents no. 6 and 8 are the woman candidates of Backward Class (05) Category who are entitled to exercise the benefit of reservation under the BCL (06) category, as per the provision laid down in the aforesaid letter. Both the aforesaid female candidates have been declared successful in the Mains (written) Examination since they secured more marks than the cut off marks of BCL (06) category As far as Sri Jai Prakash Verma, is concerned, he is a disabled candidate (OH category), who has been declared successful in the Mains (written) Examination getting the benefit of reservation under the disability quota and having secured more marks than the cut off marks, fixed for the disabled category (OH). It is stated that all the aforesaid three candidates found place in the final merit 11 list prepared after interview and got selected against the vacancy of BC (05) by dint of their merit. On the contrary, the petitioner could not be declared successful in the Mains (written) examination since he secured lesser marks than the cut off marks fixed for his reservation category i.e. BC (05).

12. It is thus the submission of the Ld. Sr. Counsel for the respondent Commission that all the aforesaid three candidates, regarding whom the petitioner has alleged that they were having less marks than the petitioner but had still qualified in the Mains (written) examination, have found place in the final merit list and have been selected by virtue of their merit which is also clear from Annexure-P 8 to the writ petition. Thus, it is evident that no candidate has been declared successful who has obtained lesser marks than the cut-off marks, in their respective categories, either in the written examination or at the time of final selection and moreover, no candidate having lesser marks than the petitioner, in the respective category, has found place in the final merit list.

13. The learned counsel for the private respondents no. 6 and 8, Shri Kumar Alok has though adopted the arguments advanced by the learned Senior counsel appearing for the 12 respondent Commission, but has further submitted that the cut- off marks fixed for succeeding in the Mains (written) examination was 503 marks and admittedly the petitioner has secured 498 marks, as such he failed to compete for the purposes of appearing in the interview. It is further submitted that as far as the respondents no. 6 and 8 are concerned, they belong to the backward class ladies category i.e. the B.C.L. Category, for which the cut-off marks, for being successful in the Mains (written) examination, was fixed as 483 and they had secured 490 and 485 marks respectively, hence, they had qualified for being called for interview.

14. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the materials on record from which it is apparent that neither any candidate having lesser marks than the petitioner in his category i.e. the B.C. category nor any candidate having lesser marks than the cut-off marks in their respective category in the Mains (written) examination have been declared successful so as to qualify for appearing in the interview. This Court further finds that the private respondents no. 6 and 8 namely Puja Kumar and Priyanka Kumari have qualified under their own category i.e. the B.C.L. category inasmuch as they have secured 490 and 485 marks, which is more than the cut-off marks fixed for that category i.e. 483 marks. As far as the respondent no. 7, namely, Jai Prakash Verma is concerned, he has qualified under the disabled category i.e. OH category 13 inasmuch as he has got 494 marks in the Mains (written) examination, which is more than the cut-off marks fixed for this category i.e. 476 marks. Therefore, this Court finds that the allegation levelled by the petitioner in the writ petition as well as contention raised to the effect that since three candidates having less marks than the petitioner under the B.C. category have been declared successful in the Mains (written) examination, the petitioner should also be declared successful in the Mains (written) examination and his candidature should be considered for selection on the post of Assistant Prosecution Officer, is not only incorrect but also thoroughly misplaced, as is apparent from the facts and circumstances of the present case, stated herein above in the preceding paragraphs.

15. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons mentioned herein above, I do not find any merit in the present writ petition, hence the same stands dismissed.