audio recording on IC -help wanted

[Dbowey]

wylbur posted:
<< I have an Epson 740 inkjet printer.

After not using it for a while, I discovered that the inkjet nozzles
were apparently clogged to the point where the "head cleaning routine"
was of limited usefulness.
The printouts show signs of missing lines and "bleeding fibers"
indicating the presence of accumulated residue around the nozzles.

I'd like to be able to free the print head carriage assembly
so that I can wipe the front of the nozzles and clean them,
but I can't find the right screws to remove.

The Epson website has various manuals to download but they don't seem
to have the one that I need. Their Product Information Guide on setup
and testing (sc740_pg.pdf) mentions (on page 15,
under Related Documentation) the "TM-SC467 Epson Stylus Color
440/640/740 Service Manual", but that publication is apparently
nowhere to be found on their website.

Can someone either
(a) explain how to remove the print head assembly so the nozzles can be
cleaned or
(b) mention a website where the necessary documentation is available
for download or
(c) if you have the document, send me a copy via email as an attachment.
I have a couple 740s and have had the same problem when I don't use them for a
few weeks, but I have never had to do anything as intrusive as you propose.

Remove the ink cartridge(s) by flipping up the plastic lever/cover on top of
the carriage. Use a barely dampened paper towel to wipe the ink jets, which are
on the bottom of the cartridge. That is a *messy* step. Wipe-dry it well,
reinstall it and then run the nozzle cleaning routine. You may need to repeat
the process.

Don

 

[Terry Given]

Norm Dresner wrote:

"Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, the Dark Remover"" <NOSPAM@dslextreme.com> wrote
in message news:10oer1ui9kijne3@corp.supernews.com...

"Norm Dresner" <ndrez@att.net> wrote in message
news:WXohd.818252$Gx4.791325@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

"Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, the Dark Remover"" <NOSPAM@dslextreme.com

wrote

in message news:10ob9o0tfm8drbc@corp.supernews.com...

I acquired many bags of these resistor SIPPS, each bag has at least

ten

of them. Each SIPP is made up of 13 (or 11 or even less) 1k, 5%

1/4W

resistors, all have one lead connected at the top to a bus. Each
resistor has the remaining lead sticking down, about a half inch

(13mm)

long, also including the bus lead.

I usually see these res packs in values that are lower, like 330,

for

TTL, and higher, like 10k, for CMOS. What's a common use for 1k? I

was

thinking that they might be ok for current limiting resistors for

LEDs,

if 2 or more were paralleled. Two in parallel would give six 500

ohm

resistors, and 3 in parallel would give four 333 ohm resistors. I'm
trying to think up a use for these. Maybe sell them on ebay? I

dunno.

My guess is that they may have been used years ago in a digital

trainer

for pullups for DIP switches. But nobody uses DIP switches any

more,

everything is saved in EEPROM.

Thanks.

For many years in the '70s when I designed with TTL (mostly standard

with

some of the newer LS) the 1K pullup was more or less standard ---

along with

the 3K which became more popular as LS became more prevalent. The DIP
resistor networks I still have in the parts cabinet are 100, 1K, 3K,

10K,

100K, and 1M and I didn't bother to stock any other values. The 100's

were

used to create 50 ohm terminations with one as pull-up and the other
pull-down.

Norm


Thanks for the confirmation. I've seen the DIP resistors often in older
equipment, too. These are just 1/4W resistors connected to a bus and
ready to be inserted into a PC board. Did you use the DIPs for pullups
for open collector TTL, or DIP switches, or what? Thanks.


Pull-ups in general. Not only OC outputs, but also inputs that had to be
tied high. Switches. Sometimes termination for between-board lines too.

Norm

Not only that, but wherever you might need a whole bunch of 1k resistors
with a common terminal... 1k was a common pull-up in ttl designs.

we used to have a quad smt machine that had an incorrect SIP array - it
was supposed to be 1k, driving some LEDs from a 12V supply, but they
fitted 220R instead. When we pulled the cover off the machine (it
reported a failure) these LEDs lit up the ceiling. The resistor pack was
glowing faintly, and the pcb was a nice dark brown colour. Not bad for a
$500,000 machine that was 1 month old

I do a lot of work using 1206 quad-packs - 4 individual resistors in a
1206-sized 8-pin package. And dual bc847/857 in a 6-lead sot363
(basically a 6-lead sot23). Lots of scope for creativity. With smt
assembly, placement cost is higher than component cost for discretes, so
arrays are cost-effective, even if you use wacko series-parallel
arrangements to get stupid values/ratios/etc. And the production
engineer will have your babies if you only use 20 different parts for a
design. Of course the schematics look crazy, especially when using
transistors as diodes, zeners etc.

Cheers
Terry

 

[Nick Hull]

In article <Pssjd.5518$hp3.557809@read2.cgocable.net>,
"Vendicar Decarian" <VD@Pyro.net> wrote:

The winners were chosen from a list of 25 institutions in Canada
and Europe.

No American institutions on the list?

--
Free men own guns, slaves don't
www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/

 

[Tim Wescott]

Nick Hull wrote:

In article <Pssjd.5518$hp3.557809@read2.cgocable.net>,
"Vendicar Decarian" <VD@Pyro.net> wrote:


The winners were chosen from a list of 25 institutions in Canada
and Europe.


No American institutions on the list?

"Five Canadian schools made the non-U.S. top 10 list". Nothing is said

in the post about the US list, or how non-US institutions rank against
US ones.

--

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com

 

[Ross Herbert]

On 12 Nov 2004 05:25:54 -0800, dave.harper@gmail.com (David Harper)
wrote:

Does anyone know how severely vibration can affect a capacitor's
ability to regulate voltage? (i.e. how much the voltage can deviate
as a function of vibration) What types of caps are better at
regulating voltage under high vibration?

Thanks in advance!
Dave

You aren't really serious, - or are you?

Let us assume you are and have a practical reason for knowing...

You are referring to "regulating voltage" and since the main use of
capacitor's in this role will be electrolytic types, then we can make
general observations. Generally speaking, electro's for voltage
smoothing/storage will have fairly large values at the appropriate
voltage rating dependant upon the load requirements, so they are
usually fairly bulky unless you are talking smd.

Any device, whether passive or active has mass and where it is known
that components will be subject to vibration, they must be adequately
secured and prevented from movement and placing any stress on their
mounting (pins, pads, whatever). Since the mounting part is the one
which suffers most during vibration it will eventually fracture unless
adequate precautions are taken when mounting. Other than the physical
aspect of preventing any movement, all passive components will be able
to handle extremely high g forces without any effect on their
operational characteristics.

In your later post in response to Dan Major you say that caps and
resistors are "solid state devices" but this is plainly incorrect. You
talk about about a "few microns displacement" and "charge holders" but
these factors have abolutely nothing to do with passive components of
the size and bulk of electrolytic caps. And due to the magnitude of
the voltages and currents they are handling any sub-micron movement
between the plates - (assuming that movement could in fact occur,
which it doesn't) - would not be noticeable and would therefore have
no effect whatsover on regulating ability.

Are you sure you are not just trolling?

 

[Ross Herbert]

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 16:42:21 +0000, Guy Macon
<http://www.guymacon.com> wrote:

Capacitors don't regulate voltage. Do a Google search on "voltage
regulators." Also. most capacitors will fail because vibration
breaks them or the board they are on long before their electrical
characteristics will change. (We are talking about a lot more
vibration than you will find in a model rocket).

What? Of course they regulate voltage...

What do you think the designers of old (and even today) used to
maintain a stable voltage supply without using an active regulator?
Yes, a bloody big capacitor, - and it still works surprisingly well.

 

[Jamie]

David Harper wrote:

Yes, they are solid state devices that "assume" the distance between
charge holders will remain constant. With vibration, if you have a
few microns displacement between charges, that could result in a small
voltage deviation, correct? The question I'm concerned with is "how
much"?

Thanks,
Dave
one of the places i do work for test their Mica Dips on 15G, thats a lot

of vibration. in that test there was no notice able problems 99.99%
of the time. now and then you may have one where the encasement does
not fully fill the voids or a bad crimp.

 

[David Harper]

Ross Herbert <rherber1@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message news:<2bjap0p1pqa76l9oep74dqcn2de4t46enf@4ax.com>...

On 12 Nov 2004 05:25:54 -0800, dave.harper@gmail.com (David Harper)
wrote:

Does anyone know how severely vibration can affect a capacitor's
ability to regulate voltage? (i.e. how much the voltage can deviate
as a function of vibration) What types of caps are better at
regulating voltage under high vibration?

Thanks in advance!
Dave

You aren't really serious, - or are you?

Yes.

Let us assume you are and have a practical reason for knowing...

You are referring to "regulating voltage" and since the main use of
capacitor's in this role will be electrolytic types, then we can make
general observations. Generally speaking, electro's for voltage
smoothing/storage will have fairly large values at the appropriate
voltage rating dependant upon the load requirements, so they are
usually fairly bulky unless you are talking smd.

Ok.

Any device, whether passive or active has mass and where it is known
that components will be subject to vibration, they must be adequately
secured and prevented from movement and placing any stress on their
mounting (pins, pads, whatever). Since the mounting part is the one
which suffers most during vibration it will eventually fracture unless
adequate precautions are taken when mounting.

The time spent under high vibration for the life of this project will
be minutes, at most. I'm not worried about lead or solder fatigue.

Other than the physical
aspect of preventing any movement, all passive components will be able
to handle extremely high g forces without any effect on their
operational characteristics.

In your later post in response to Dan Major you say that caps and
resistors are "solid state devices" but this is plainly incorrect.

He stated they were solid state devices, so I just went along with it.
My apologies.

You
talk about about a "few microns displacement" and "charge holders" but
these factors have abolutely nothing to do with passive components of
the size and bulk of electrolytic caps.

Pardon? You're stating that if you took a charged cap, changed the
distance between the plates and measured the voltage across it while
doing so, there'd be no change in voltage at all?

And due to the magnitude of
the voltages and currents they are handling any sub-micron movement
between the plates -

Compare that "sub-micron" movement with the actual thickness of the
dielectric material. It is very thin to begin with. A few microns of
compression of the dielectric could be a small percentage of the
thickness of the dielectric. I didn't know. THAT'S WHY I ASKED.

(assuming that movement could in fact occur, which it doesn't)

You statement implies the dielectric would be infinitely hard and
incompressable. No substance is.

- would not be noticeable and would therefore have

no effect whatsover on regulating ability.

Well, I tried this for myself. Using a speaker and running several
different frequencies through it (with the cap attached through a
linkage 10" away), the oscope showed a clear voltage deviation. Some
frequencies (10kHz) were worse than others (500Hz). Maybe before
attacking someone's question, you may want to make sure you're not
making too many assumptions.

Are you sure you are not just trolling?

What about my question implied that I was looking for an argument?
I'm not sure if you were just in a bad mood when you replied, but it
was a civilized question, did not insult anyone, and had several
people talk about microphonics.

Dave

 

[Phil Vossler]

5532 & 5534??? These were the bees knees back in the '80s. Are they
*still* the best for audio? I'd be surprised if there were nothing more
recent that has better specs....

I admit my days of analog design ended years ago - but i have a little
requirement for an audio distribution amp hence recommendations for good
audio op-amps would be very welcome.....


Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, the Dark Remover" wrote:

"Michael A. Covington" <look@ai.uga.edu.for.address> wrote in message
news:411ef6ba$1@mustang.speedfactory.net...

What is the difference between these op-amps? The latter is billed as
"low-noise" but they have the same noise specification (18

nv/sqrt(Hz)), as

well as nearly all the same other specifications ('81 has less offset
error). And the same price (48 cents).

I've been using them both as general-purpose op-amps for a long time

and

haven't noticed any difference between them. Are they generally well
regarded? What do people prefer as an all-purpose, default-choice

op-amp

these days (in place of the old 741, which I always thought was too

noisy)?


5532 series for audio apps? The TL082 was sold by Rat Shack but the
package would come with either that or a LF353. I guess they were
interchangeable. I would not use a 741 for decent Hi-Fi audio apps.

 

[Ross Herbert]

On 13 Nov 2004 10:09:13 -0800, dave.harper@gmail.com (David Harper)
wrote:

Ross Herbert <rherber1@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message news:<2bjap0p1pqa76l9oep74dqcn2de4t46enf@4ax.com>...
On 12 Nov 2004 05:25:54 -0800, dave.harper@gmail.com (David Harper)
wrote:

Does anyone know how severely vibration can affect a capacitor's
ability to regulate voltage? (i.e. how much the voltage can deviate
as a function of vibration) What types of caps are better at
regulating voltage under high vibration?

Thanks in advance!
Dave

You aren't really serious, - or are you?

Yes.

Let us assume you are and have a practical reason for knowing...

You are referring to "regulating voltage" and since the main use of
capacitor's in this role will be electrolytic types, then we can make
general observations. Generally speaking, electro's for voltage
smoothing/storage will have fairly large values at the appropriate
voltage rating dependant upon the load requirements, so they are
usually fairly bulky unless you are talking smd.

Ok.

Any device, whether passive or active has mass and where it is known
that components will be subject to vibration, they must be adequately
secured and prevented from movement and placing any stress on their
mounting (pins, pads, whatever). Since the mounting part is the one
which suffers most during vibration it will eventually fracture unless
adequate precautions are taken when mounting.

The time spent under high vibration for the life of this project will
be minutes, at most. I'm not worried about lead or solder fatigue.

Well, if you had provided this info initially it would have saved a
lot of time spent considering this aspect.

snip

You
talk about about a "few microns displacement" and "charge holders" but
these factors have abolutely nothing to do with passive components of
the size and bulk of electrolytic caps.

Pardon? You're stating that if you took a charged cap, changed the
distance between the plates and measured the voltage across it while
doing so, there'd be no change in voltage at all?

I didn't say "no change in voltage at all" but when we are considering
the proposed subject (in your initial statement) of "voltage
regulation" we must assume (since you also didn't mention exactly what
magnitudes you were referring to) that this would involve voltages of
at least several volts. In this sort of application even a few microns
displacement in an electro cap would make no practical difference in
its output voltage. It may change by a couple of microvolts but that's
about all. Now if you are referring to "voltage regulation" in the
millivolts range then you must be dealling with extremely low currents
to boot, and in this case you wouldn't be using the large type of
electro caps anyway.

And due to the magnitude of
the voltages and currents they are handling any sub-micron movement
between the plates -

Compare that "sub-micron" movement with the actual thickness of the
dielectric material. It is very thin to begin with. A few microns of
compression of the dielectric could be a small percentage of the
thickness of the dielectric. I didn't know. THAT'S WHY I ASKED.

Well why don't you spell out the exact situation together with a
precise description of what you are trying to do and at what voltage
and currents and trhe test setup you are using. We are all guessing
unless you do this.

(assuming that movement could in fact occur, which it doesn't)

You statement implies the dielectric would be infinitely hard and
incompressable. No substance is.

- would not be noticeable and would therefore have
no effect whatsover on regulating ability.

Well, I tried this for myself. Using a speaker and running several
different frequencies through it (with the cap attached through a
linkage 10" away), the oscope showed a clear voltage deviation. Some
frequencies (10kHz) were worse than others (500Hz). Maybe before
attacking someone's question, you may want to make sure you're not
making too many assumptions.

Now you are introducing a completely different set of circumstances.
Just what has your original question got to do with alternating
voltages at audio frequencies. Your question was about "voltage
regulation", and that implies DIRECT CURRENT.

Are you sure you are not just trolling?

What about my question implied that I was looking for an argument?
I'm not sure if you were just in a bad mood when you replied, but it
was a civilized question, did not insult anyone, and had several
people talk about microphonics.

Dave

Well it just seems to me to be that you might be trying to stimulate
some discussion purely for your own entertainment. If you really want
some help on this describe exactly what it is you trying to
accomplish.

 

[Barry & Nikki]

I have 5 available. Just make me a reasonable offer including shipping if
you live in the U.S. and we can go from there.



"madhattr62" <ws8c@icqmail.com> wrote in message
news:64ed268451fc4812ff6a3027300d26e6@localhost.talkaboutelectronicequipment
..com...

What quantity of UPC1156h do you have and what price would you consider?

 

[David Harper]

Ross Herbert <rherber1@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message news:<g7hip01e744r56pud958mg1pfktjkh2q1j@4ax.com>...

On 15 Nov 2004 15:40:37 -0800, dave.harper@gmail.com (David Harper)
wrote:


I have a microcontroller reading a dual-channel 12-bit ADC, one
channel reading a ADXL150 accelerometer and the other a motorola 6115
pressure sensor. It is mounted on a high powered rocket (not the
little 'C' engines kids shoot, but rather H, I, and J engines, which
can exceed 100lbs of thrust and vibrate quite a bit). During the
boost phase, I expect to see around 15g's, as well as quite a bit of
vibration especially as it approaches Mach 1.

My question is how much could variation in the 5VDC reference voltage
affect the measurement of the accelerometer during the boost phase?
The pressure sensor isn't read (nor deploys the parachute) until after
the boost phase, so I'm not concerned with that.

Dave


Now we can start to understand what your question really is about.
Thanks for the welcome info.

For a start you should determine the worst case current drain on your
5VDC reference and endeavour to select components and circuitry to
keep the drain as low as possible, buffering the supply if necessary.
You should then use capacitors with the least volume possible to do
the job. Preferably they should have solid electrolyte while being
physically small and you can parallel as many as needed of the
selected component as are required. This approach will eliminate any
tendancy towards voltage variation due to plate displacement within
the capacitors themselves. That's where I would start.

Thanks for the advice. I assume by solid electrolyte, you mean
something like tantalum? I'll probably end up putting a couple in
parallel and see if I can dampen the board from vibe as much as
possible.

Dave

 

[Eric Smith]

"mario" <gianmarioRE.scottiMO@nokiaVE.com> writes:

So, this board has, among other things, an IC that looks a lot like
theMotorola 68000 (64 CERDIP, 900 mils wide) and in fact, it sports the
Motorola logo, but this is what is written on it:

8040000
SC88019L
GN78302

There's a high probability that it's a house-numbered MC68000.
GN7 is an MC68000 mask code, although it's remotely possible that
the same mask code could have been used for some other part.

 

[Tim Wescott]

Eric Smith wrote:

"mario" <gianmarioRE.scottiMO@nokiaVE.com> writes:

So, this board has, among other things, an IC that looks a lot like
theMotorola 68000 (64 CERDIP, 900 mils wide) and in fact, it sports the
Motorola logo, but this is what is written on it:

8040000
SC88019L
GN78302


There's a high probability that it's a house-numbered MC68000.
GN7 is an MC68000 mask code, although it's remotely possible that
the same mask code could have been used for some other part.

That 88xxx makes me suspicious -- are you sure it isn't an 88000 part of
some sort?

--

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com

 

[Michael Black]

Tim Wescott (tim@wescottnospamdesign.com) writes:

Eric Smith wrote:

"mario" <gianmarioRE.scottiMO@nokiaVE.com> writes:

So, this board has, among other things, an IC that looks a lot like
theMotorola 68000 (64 CERDIP, 900 mils wide) and in fact, it sports the
Motorola logo, but this is what is written on it:

8040000
SC88019L
GN78302


There's a high probability that it's a house-numbered MC68000.
GN7 is an MC68000 mask code, although it's remotely possible that
the same mask code could have been used for some other part.

That 88xxx makes me suspicious -- are you sure it isn't an 88000 part of
some sort?

I wondered too. I thought their first RISC, before they got together

with Apple, was the 88000 series.

Michael

 

[Tim Wescott]

Can someone with experience with the part tell me if there are
sufficient differences between the PIC 16F84 and the 16F84A to cause
problems during EEPROM write? I have purchased the "A" part for a
circuit (and software) that calls out the plain-jane version. I'm
having problems (described below) that are either the thing locking up
in mid-write or are _really weird_.

Tim Wescott wrote:

Anybody on the list who has experience with the Montreal Fox? I just
got one to the point where I can start entering call signs, and it's
acting very strange -- I can enter some letters & numbers, but others
won't go, and if I try my callsign it just pukes.

Is this a known problem, or do I have a unique issue here?

Thanks in advance.

--

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com

 

[Dave Platt]

In article <10plnr9sstscfd9@corp.supernews.com>,
Tim Wescott <tim@wescottnospamdesign.com> wrote:

Can someone with experience with the part tell me if there are
sufficient differences between the PIC 16F84 and the 16F84A to cause
problems during EEPROM write?

I suggest you go right to the horses's mouth: the 84->84A migration
guide is at http://ww1.microchip.com/downloads/en/DeviceDoc/30072b.pdf

It looks to me as if there are some voltage, and timing differences
involving access to the EEPROM. Dunno whether that's the cause of
your lockups, though.

http://ww1.microchip.com/downloads/en/DeviceDoc/80083b.pdf is the
16F84A errata document.

--
Dave Platt <dplatt@radagast.org> AE6EO
Hosting the Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!

 

[Tim Wescott]

Dave Platt wrote:

In article <10plnr9sstscfd9@corp.supernews.com>,
Tim Wescott <tim@wescottnospamdesign.com> wrote:


Can someone with experience with the part tell me if there are
sufficient differences between the PIC 16F84 and the 16F84A to cause
problems during EEPROM write?


I suggest you go right to the horses's mouth: the 84->84A migration
guide is at http://ww1.microchip.com/downloads/en/DeviceDoc/30072b.pdf

It looks to me as if there are some voltage, and timing differences
involving access to the EEPROM. Dunno whether that's the cause of
your lockups, though.

http://ww1.microchip.com/downloads/en/DeviceDoc/80083b.pdf is the
16F84A errata document.

Hard to say -- it's not very definitive.

--

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com

 

[mike]

Tim Wescott wrote:

Dave Platt wrote:

In article <10plnr9sstscfd9@corp.supernews.com>,
Tim Wescott <tim@wescottnospamdesign.com> wrote:


Can someone with experience with the part tell me if there are
sufficient differences between the PIC 16F84 and the 16F84A to cause
problems during EEPROM write?



I suggest you go right to the horses's mouth: the 84->84A migration
guide is at http://ww1.microchip.com/downloads/en/DeviceDoc/30072b.pdf

It looks to me as if there are some voltage, and timing differences
involving access to the EEPROM. Dunno whether that's the cause of
your lockups, though.

http://ww1.microchip.com/downloads/en/DeviceDoc/80083b.pdf is the
16F84A errata document.

Hard to say -- it's not very definitive.

Been a long time since I looked, but as I recall, they inverted the
sense of one of the pins when they went to A???
mike

--
Return address is VALID.
500MHz Tek DSOscilloscope TDS540 $2200
http://nm7u.tripod.com/homepage/te.html
Wanted, 12.1" LCD for Gateway Solo 5300. Samsung LT121SU-121
Bunch of stuff For Sale and Wanted at the link below.
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Monitor/4710/

 

[Mike Harrison]

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 23:02:30 -0000, "Andrew Holme" <andrew@nospam.com> wrote:

Does anyone know a UK source for miniature 16mm x 5mm mains fuses, as used
in 1960's communications receivers e.g. RA1217, PR155 ?

You could probably 'make' some using wire-ended (PCB mount) fuses in tubes with 20mm caps