I do not know where (how) it was used. Probably current sensing.
.20---.22----.24 Probably could more over one value but not more. Really a big guess.
Something may have failed that caused the resistor to go. So replacing the resistor might not do anything but kill the second resistor. More likely a transistor that first popped and caused too much current.
looks like a 1/2W, Maybe 1W. If you can find 4, 1Ω resistors and put them all in parallel (giving you 0.25Ω, if your lucky...), that might work. Again, and as ron notes, not knowing for sure its purpose, it's just a guess.
Metal oxide resistors are typically used as safety resistors because they usually vaporize. Metal film resistors tend to puddle. If it's wire wound resistor, you should be able to tell. The other types are carbon film and carbon composition.
Each has an intended use and carbon composition is the lowest cost.
Metal oxide resistors are typically used as safety resistors because they usually vaporize. Metal film resistors tend to puddle. If it's wire wound resistor, you should be able to tell. The other types are carbon film and carbon composition.
Each has an intended use and carbon composition is the lowest cost.
But what happens if I use a 5W resistor and it should have been 1W? As long as the resistance is the same, wouldn't it be fine if it has a higher rating?
In most cases yes. Low value resistors are either used as current sense resistors or basically used as a fuse. Sometimes resistors that are supposed to get hot, so to speak are mounted on ceramic standoffs to get them above the board.
A metal-oxide resistor will literally break in two pieces if overloaded. Note that these resistors are call "Flame Proof" for that reason.
it is hard for me to tell just what kind of resistor it was. The orange one (other thread) on your board shows more of the metal oxide characteristics.
A .22 in a monitor is likely to be a current sense as mentioned, and also likely to be in a smps, for that reason an inductive resistor such as a wirewound probably wont be suitable.
Paralleling carbons might work however looking at the way the old one has failed I'd say its a fusible, paralelling carbons might be a way of proving that is the case and nothing else is wrong, however you wont have the protection that a fusible provides.
You also should check the switching transistors, rectifiers and caps to make sure there are no shorts, something like this probably blew that thing in the first place.