MessageView 421F schematic

[Ken S]

Thanks for posting. Flashtube works but frequency dial pot varies
frequency very little to none. Ohmed pot out and it appears to work OK
one end to the other and tube checks OK. I don't want to unsolder
parts to check them one at a time so I guess I will try to sketch out
a schematic.
KS

On 6 Mar 2006 04:19:32 -0800, "carneyke" <carneyke@localnet.com>
wrote:

I know this isn't what you are looking for but the flashtubes were the
most common problem.

 

[Brad Velander]

You know what, I really don't get where all of you idiots start making up
your own rules and telling others that they have follow them? Have you
actually read the Usenet FAQs? Seemingly not because they refer specifically
to the behavoir that you are demonstrating and they directly refute your
"rules". There are no rules, get it idiot? So take the gist of people's
posts and reply to them or not, at your discretion. Don't try imposing your
rules where they don't belong and requested.

As for your comment about multi-posting, sure I agree it is legitimate
in some cases. However there are too many alter-trolls out there that will
also complain about that, seen it often enough. So where does that leave the
less initiated, at the mercy of the whole lot of you that make up your own
rules and try shoving them down everyone's throats.

--
Sincerely,
Brad Velander.

"Noah Little" <me2@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:duh8a6$3ra$3@n4vu2.n4vu.com...

Brad Velander wrote to JeffM:
You really dont' get it! Nobody elected you to police Usenet...

Nor did they you. While JeffM's style may have been unnecessarily
abrasive, the links he posted should be required reading for everyone
before they're allowed on Usenet.

Now if we could just get people to realize that sometimes multi-posting
is appropriate, and failure to trim replies is even worse than top
posting.
--
Noah

 

[James F. Mayer]

"http://www.wilsonselectronics.net" <wilson2011@bellsouth.net> wrote in
message news:Gn6Pf.18846$f6.12897@bignews1.bellsouth.net...

test

Where are the questions, if this is a test?

 

[carneyke]

I worked on one 2-3 years ago that would flash but not at a fast rate.
It was the flash tube.

 

[Peter Orban]

Hello Everyone,

Many thanks for the replies!

Here is an update: I did find the datasheets for the main functional
chips and made some more measurements in the counter.
There is no clock signal coming out of the time-base chip! The
oscillator stage is running, but no signal at the end of the divider
chain, even if the next stage is disconnected.
Now I just have to find an MM5369AA locally. I hoped to get a sample
from National, but the chip is now obsolete ;-(

I also looked up Tabor Electronics in Israel as suggested, and will ask
them about documentation. Their current counters are 6020, 6030 etc.

Thanks again for the help!

Regards, Peter

 

Ian Summers <isummers@zipworld.com.au> wrote:

Does anyone know what are the standards for environment testing for
electronics equipment? In particular we want to test a controller box for
use in a bus. Australian standards would be most preferred.

I would suggest that you start with the American standard SAE J1455
(Society of Automotive Engineers), which covers various environmental tests
on vehicle-mounted electronics.

Similar standards exist in the international community, like IEC 60068-2,
covering a wide variety of shock, vibration, and other environmental
testing of electronics.

Finally, try to Google "vibration standards".

John Hart
DDL, Inc.

--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB

 

[JANA]

I would contact Fluke directly and ask about this. They should have the most
accurate answers for you.

--

JANA
_____


<Syncom2@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5bd8e0a4-7ce1-490f-9813-3d4128e8edc9@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
I recently purchased a Fluke 6070A RF Signal Generator on eBay.
While I was playing with it I noticed that the Spin Knob has 18
magnetic detents per full revolution resulting in 18 counts per
compleat revolution instead of the 25 counts per revolution that both
the user manual and datasheet say it should have.
Also the Instruments default setting when turned from the cold is:-
Freq. = 300 MHz and Amplitude = -10 dBm. (This instrument does not
have the Non-Volatile Memory option fitted i.e. -570 ) where as the
standard power-on setup listed on page 5E-2 of the Operator Manual
states that the Frequency ddisplayed should be 250 MHz and Amplitude
-60dBm. I also have my suspicion with regard to the FM deviation
limits but that's a bit more complicated to check as there is an
interaction with the Modulating frequency and Output frequency.
The guy I bought it from says he has a number of these all the same.
So what have I actually got ? I can find no reference to it on the
internet
Were there a couple of different versions or did they do custum
versions for some customers e.g. MOD or GOV etc. ?
Apart from this the instrument works as expected.

 

[Engineer]

On Jun 15, 9:56 pm, JosephKK <quiettechb...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 12:53:35 -0500, Jim Adney <jad...@vwtype3.org
wrote:

(snip)

Interesting thread... I use a Heathkitt TC-2 quite a lot - the chart
is in good shape (still !), but I'm not convinced that rolling it up
and down is the best way to get to specific tube set-up data (of
course, it's always to hand... er, thumb !) For odd-balls, you have
to go to the supplementary sheets anyway. It's cheaper to copy it
sequentially onto separate 8 1/2 x 11 sheets (two sided, one or two
columns, use a paper mask on the "other" column as you don't want it
on the same page), spiral bind them and keep them with the tester.
I've done this for the Heathkit tube supplementary sheets (and for
most downloaded manuals.) Then simply scan down to the tube you want
by eye. Easy to add extras, too.
I don't say scrap the roller chart - put it back carefully for
posterity (repaired as needed) and keep it there, but not used much.
Cheers,
Roger

 

[Ancient_Hacker]

I would just thank my lucky stars that the thing works at all.

I got a pallet-load of these a few years back. About 85% of them had
some serious problem.
The Fan controller IC tends to burn up real good. The hundreds of
IC's tend to work out of their sockets.

And many issues are not fixable-- there are a passel of adjustments
that are "factory-only",
or require a reburn of the calibration roms.

 

[Kalle Pesonen]

Kun vuosia sitten aloin systemaattisesti lanseeraamaan ydinalan synkkää
tulevaisuusfaktaa, päätin lähteä niin radigaalilla linjallani, ettei
"alkuunpanijaa jutuissani" tarvitse jälkeenpäin jossitella. Otetaan
esimerkki. Kun vuosia sitten aloin esittämään, maailman ensimmäisenä, että
jatkossa mehiläiset tulevat ydinaavikoitumisen takia miltei kuolemaan
sukupuuttoon sain osakseni miltei 98% silkkaa naurua ja epäuskoa. Se oli
aikalaisistamme jotain käsittämättömän hauskaa .. niin ..silloin! Ei haluttu
ymmärtää, että se olisi edes teoriassa mahdollista. Miten miljardit
maapallon mehiläiset nyt noin vaan yhtäkkiä katoaisivat ja naurua pilkan
keraa kyllä piisasi. Mutta alan ammattilaista ei se edes hetkauttanut.
...Kirjoittelin vaan, että näette varsin megalomaanisen muuttumisen. Ei vaan
ollut kuulema KUKAAN mehiläispuutoksista kuullut, saati että tautiahan ne
toki ovat, ja varroapunkkeja kaikki sairastuneet mehiläiset kantoi. Ei
uponnut ÄLY tykillä, ei taulalla ydininsuille, ei!

03.06.2008 MTV ja kymmenen uutiset. Kylmänä totuutena on viimein vuosien
jossittelujen jälkeen PAKKO vaikein vatsoin myöntää, että -90% mehiläiskato
kattaa maapalloamme jo. Einsteinin mehiläisennuste oli tullut karusti
kylään, merkkinä pölyttäjistä ei muuta kuin jätökset jäljellä ja
ENNENKAIKKEA vuiosien varmuus virus- ja punkkisyistä oli toimittajien suista
kuin taiottuna kaikonneet! Mitä IHMETTÄ? Eikä vanhat vuosien mehiläisvalheet
kestäneet ennustusteni jälkeen enää äkkiä lainkaan?

Täysin nsama tilanne oli aikanaan ydinaavikoitumisfaktoissani myös. Kummasti
vaan on alkanut lehdet ja jopa FAO, YK ja TV muotoilemaan tulevaisuuttamme
ydinaavikoituvaksi ennusteitteni mukaan, toki väkipakoin. Parisen vuotta
sitten ennakointeja ruuan totaalikadolle ja kastelun elintärkeälle +50%
lisäämisille CO2 lisän ennakoimissa +30% tulvaennakoinneissa ei uskonut
aiemmin juuri kukaan. Nyt on ydinaavikoituminen kiristänyt otetta 12v vallan
HURJASTI! Ruuan totaalikato koettelee jo parrun lailla kansanmassojen
otsaluuta. Ikäänkuin kohtalon oikusta KAIKKI keskeisemmät
Neo-teismiennusteeni mystisesti vaan ajaa omavoimaisesti itseään
julkisuuteen. Pahus kun alkoi jopa TVO:n tritium kohota ennakoimani mukaan
ihan hillittömästi! Metsät menetämme raunioikseen takuusti muutamissa
vuosissa säteilyn syödessä kasvuionisaatiopankit nolliin. On se vaan kummaa
miten KUKAAN ei kyseenalaista enää edes linnut ilmasta tappavan
beettasoihdun olemasaolon mekaniikkoja. Vaan päinvastoin asia leviää jo
maailman tekstareissa ennennäkemättömästi. Jopa minusta riippumatta.

Vaan ei tämä toki ole kuin vasta VARSIN varovaista alkulämmittelyä. Olen
kiteyttänyt jatkot niin, että kerraten, aina vaan tiukemmalla
kuristusotteella. Ydinaavikoitumiskumpuamistuhojen tappamat meremme tulevat
olemaan jatkon airuita. Eli ihmiskunnalta otetaan luontolohko kerrallaan,
kuten vaikka matelijoiden ja sammakoiden maaailmanlaajuinen hätätila
tritiumsadelammikkokuolemiinsa. Palikka kerrallaan, olkaa huoleti, kyllä
jartkossa LÖYTYTY! Itse asiassa edes minä en halua kertoa mitä tulevat
vuodet esittää. Olen vaan pyrkinyt kiteyttämään selkeitä merkkejä
ydinaavikoitumiskasvusta julki. Kuten huommaatte liki 99% osumatarkkuuksin.
Olemme yksinkertaisesti menossa "punaisten sateitten aikaan" jonka
seurauksena yksi on varmaa. Ydinvoima LÄHTEE! En , toistan EN usko
maailmanloppuun asiassa, vaan jossemme tajua ydinvoiman tuhoajuutta menemme
kyllä ydinvoimamme mukana TAATUSTI hautaan. Mutta ehkä aletaan tajuta
ydintappomekaniikoja ja kaikkein pahin ydinairut vältetään? Ehkä ydinala ei
kansanmurhaajana salli viimehetken järkiintymistä ja ihmiskunta menee
ydinvoimineen maailmasta?

PS. Kyse ei ole minkäänmoisista meedioinnneista. Vaan IHAN
peruskvanttiydinfaktojen tajuamisesta vähän samoin kuin jo Einstein asiat
ydinvastaisuuksissaan oivalsi! Haluan korostaa tätä jo sen vuoksi, etten
halua "ennustajan leimamystifiointia" kosken sellaiseen toki kykene. Vaan
nämä mykistävät ennakointini perustuvat siis arkiseen IAEA:n sensuroimaan
kuivaan kvanttiydinfysiikan tajuntaylivoimaan. Ei mihinkään muuhun. Aiemmin
sain toki tottua silmittömään naureskeluun ja epäuskon hyökyyn.. .. Mutta
kas vaan, "ikäänkuin" ydininsujen naurujänteistä olisi jo ikävin ponsi
katkennut´?))Noo, kuten sanoin jatkossa MEGAKLOMANISESTI löytyy!((

 

[ratman]

On Tue, 08 May 2007 14:56:50 GMT, DaveC <me@privacy.net> wrote:

I know this subject of "cheap" and "calibrate" used in the same sentence may
well be anathema to some of you but I need to verify that either my IR temp
gun is accurate or my DMM/thermocouple is, or neither. Accuracy to 2 or 3
degrees F is fine.

I'm looking for suggestions for a simple way to provide some kind of common
temperature "standard" (I use the term loosely, here) I can compare these
against.

Thanks,

I would put money on the therocouple thermometer, for what
it's worth.

 

[IanM]

ratman wrote:

On Tue, 08 May 2007 14:56:50 GMT, DaveC <me@privacy.net> wrote:


I know this subject of "cheap" and "calibrate" used in the same sentence may
well be anathema to some of you but I need to verify that either my IR temp
gun is accurate or my DMM/thermocouple is, or neither. Accuracy to 2 or 3
degrees F is fine.

I'm looking for suggestions for a simple way to provide some kind of common
temperature "standard" (I use the term loosely, here) I can compare these
against.

Thanks,



I would put money on the therocouple thermometer, for what
it's worth.
Melting ice and condensing steam. For both you are going to need a

small copper or aluminium block painted matte black for the IR temp gun
to read and a hole drilled in the block thats a close fit for the
thermocouple with a little dab of heat transfer grease. Implementation
is your problem, although it can be advantageous to insulate the sides
of the block with expanded polystyrene.

 

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 01:50:45 +0000, IanM <Invalid@totally.invalid>
wrote:

ratman wrote:

On Tue, 08 May 2007 14:56:50 GMT, DaveC <me@privacy.net> wrote:


I know this subject of "cheap" and "calibrate" used in the same sentence may
well be anathema to some of you but I need to verify that either my IR temp
gun is accurate or my DMM/thermocouple is, or neither. Accuracy to 2 or 3
degrees F is fine.

I'm looking for suggestions for a simple way to provide some kind of common
temperature "standard" (I use the term loosely, here) I can compare these
against.

Thanks,



I would put money on the therocouple thermometer, for what
it's worth.
Melting ice and condensing steam. For both you are going to need a
small copper or aluminium block painted matte black for the IR temp gun
to read and a hole drilled in the block thats a close fit for the
thermocouple with a little dab of heat transfer grease. Implementation
is your problem, although it can be advantageous to insulate the sides
of the block with expanded polystyrene.

Water and ice have thermal IR emissivity of around 98%, about as black
as things get. So mix crushed ice into cold water in a glass or cup,
preferably a thermos, stir, and aim your IR thermometer straignt down
into that. Or swish a thermocouple around in it. Even yukky tap water,
well stirred with ice, will be within 15 mK of 0C.

The high end, boiling, is a little trickier.

John

 

[Eeyore]

ratman wrote:

DaveC <me@privacy.net> wrote:

I know this subject of "cheap" and "calibrate" used in the same sentence may
well be anathema to some of you but I need to verify that either my IR temp
gun is accurate or my DMM/thermocouple is, or neither. Accuracy to 2 or 3
degrees F is fine.

I'm looking for suggestions for a simple way to provide some kind of common
temperature "standard" (I use the term loosely, here) I can compare these
against.

Thanks,

I would put money on the therocouple thermometer, for what
it's worth.

I used to 'calibrate' thermocouples by putting them in boiling water.

Graham

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 19:02:54 -0600, the renowned ratman
<endlr@execpc.com> wrote:

On Tue, 08 May 2007 14:56:50 GMT, DaveC <me@privacy.net> wrote:

I know this subject of "cheap" and "calibrate" used in the same sentence may
well be anathema to some of you but I need to verify that either my IR temp
gun is accurate or my DMM/thermocouple is, or neither. Accuracy to 2 or 3
degrees F is fine.

I'm looking for suggestions for a simple way to provide some kind of common
temperature "standard" (I use the term loosely, here) I can compare these
against.

Thanks,


I would put money on the therocouple thermometer, for what
it's worth.

Simply apply a millivoltage equivalent to the thermocouple thermometer
and see if it reads right (use a known-good DMM with a 200mV range).
You'll need to know the ambient temperature accurately. When you short
the input it should read the temperature at the jack. When you apply
the mV (calculate from desired reading and ambient, given the type--
usually "K" = Chromel-Alumel) it should read that temperature.

The thermocouple itself will either work well enough or not at all,
barring the most extreme circumstances.


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

 

[Don Bruder]

In article <491E3A09.F264752C@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

ratman wrote:

DaveC <me@privacy.net> wrote:

I know this subject of "cheap" and "calibrate" used in the same sentence
may
well be anathema to some of you but I need to verify that either my IR
temp
gun is accurate or my DMM/thermocouple is, or neither. Accuracy to 2 or 3
degrees F is fine.

I'm looking for suggestions for a simple way to provide some kind of
common
temperature "standard" (I use the term loosely, here) I can compare these
against.

Thanks,

I would put money on the therocouple thermometer, for what
it's worth.

I used to 'calibrate' thermocouples by putting them in boiling water.

Graham

The classic method, taught to me for checking/calibrating the lab
thermometers in HS chemistry class:

0C/32F = nice tall glass of icecubes allowed to stand and melt long
enough to give you sufficient liquid water to take a reading.

100C/212F = nice cup of rolling-boil water at 1 standard atmosphere

Might not have been *PERFECT*, but it was at least reasonably close
enough for the stuff we were doing.

--
Don Bruder - dakidd@sonic.net - If your "From:" address isn't on my whitelist,
or the subject of the message doesn't contain the exact text "PopperAndShadow"
somewhere, any message sent to this address will go in the garbage without my
ever knowing it arrived. Sorry... <http://www.sonic.net/~dakidd> for more info

 

[Eeyore]

Don Bruder wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
ratman wrote:
DaveC <me@privacy.net> wrote:

I know this subject of "cheap" and "calibrate" used in the same sentence
may well be anathema to some of you but I need to verify that either my IR
temp gun is accurate or my DMM/thermocouple is, or neither. Accuracy to 2
or 3
degrees F is fine.

I'm looking for suggestions for a simple way to provide some kind of
common temperature "standard" (I use the term loosely, here) I can compare
these
against.

I would put money on the therocouple thermometer, for what
it's worth.

I used to 'calibrate' thermocouples by putting them in boiling water.

The classic method, taught to me for checking/calibrating the lab
thermometers in HS chemistry class:

0C/32F = nice tall glass of icecubes allowed to stand and melt long
enough to give you sufficient liquid water to take a reading.

100C/212F = nice cup of rolling-boil water at 1 standard atmosphere

Might not have been *PERFECT*, but it was at least reasonably close
enough for the stuff we were doing.

And that's normally good enough ! Best ignore the change in boiling point vs atm
pressure. ;~)

Graham

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 13:17:11 +0000, the renowned Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

Don Bruder wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
ratman wrote:
DaveC <me@privacy.net> wrote:

I know this subject of "cheap" and "calibrate" used in the same sentence
may well be anathema to some of you but I need to verify that either my IR
temp gun is accurate or my DMM/thermocouple is, or neither. Accuracy to 2
or 3
degrees F is fine.

I'm looking for suggestions for a simple way to provide some kind of
common temperature "standard" (I use the term loosely, here) I can compare
these
against.

I would put money on the therocouple thermometer, for what
it's worth.

I used to 'calibrate' thermocouples by putting them in boiling water.

The classic method, taught to me for checking/calibrating the lab
thermometers in HS chemistry class:

0C/32F = nice tall glass of icecubes allowed to stand and melt long
enough to give you sufficient liquid water to take a reading.

100C/212F = nice cup of rolling-boil water at 1 standard atmosphere

Might not have been *PERFECT*, but it was at least reasonably close
enough for the stuff we were doing.

And that's normally good enough ! Best ignore the change in boiling point vs atm
pressure. ;~)

Graham

A bit of knowledge can be dangerous...

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/sts/chang/boiling/index.htm


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

 

[IanM]

Spehro Pefhany wrote:

On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 13:17:11 +0000, the renowned Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:



Don Bruder wrote:


Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

I used to 'calibrate' thermocouples by putting them in boiling water.

100C/212F = nice cup of rolling-boil water at 1 standard atmosphere

Might not have been *PERFECT*, but it was at least reasonably close
enough for the stuff we were doing.

And that's normally good enough ! Best ignore the change in boiling point vs atm
pressure. ;~)


A bit of knowledge can be dangerous...

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/sts/chang/boiling/index.htm

Which is why I reccomended condensing steam on a metal block. Avoids

all sorts of problems with superheat. Once you've done that, might as
well use the same block in melting ice for consistancy.

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Sat, 15 Nov 2008 14:42:56 +0000) it happened IanM
<Invalid@totally.invalid> wrote in <gfmmvv$1ap7$1@energise.enta.net>:

Spehro Pefhany wrote:

On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 13:17:11 +0000, the renowned Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:



Don Bruder wrote:


Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

I used to 'calibrate' thermocouples by putting them in boiling water.

100C/212F = nice cup of rolling-boil water at 1 standard atmosphere

Might not have been *PERFECT*, but it was at least reasonably close
enough for the stuff we were doing.

And that's normally good enough ! Best ignore the change in boiling point vs atm
pressure. ;~)


A bit of knowledge can be dangerous...

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/sts/chang/boiling/index.htm

Which is why I reccomended condensing steam on a metal block. Avoids
all sorts of problems with superheat. Once you've done that, might as
well use the same block in melting ice for consistancy.

I JUST USED TO HOLD THE SENSOR IN MY HAND AND SET FOR 37.5°C.