Re: OT MathCad 7 Professional
Wow.? 82 years old, still competent? with software skills, and can write a very cogent and easy to follow message.? I'm impressed.? I hope that in 11 more years, I'm still here and can do as well.
Barry - N4BUQ
Asking for a friend, his words:
?
About 30 years ago I started using MathCAD for most of my calculations.
It used standard algebraic display of equations - which after Fortran
seemed so easy ....
I eventually got MathCAD 7 for use with my consulting work? - Was great !
Many years later, I bought MathCAD 13 - and found - to my dismay - that
they (Mathsoft) had not made it backward compatible !
All my old files needed to be seriously modified!? ---- So I stayed with
Version 7 .
My MathCAD 7 was the "standard" version - not the "Professional" version
- although both used the same manual !
Some functions were not available in my standard version - in
particular, "DO" loops !
I managed for years without them --- but then, about 3 years ago, my
requirement for large iterative calculations got to be basically
impossible using my "work-arounds".
I am 82 years old - and not keen to learn a whole new language --- so I
wondered if I could buy an old "used" version of? Mathcad 7
"professional"? ? Is such a thing done?
I would hope to put it on my Windows 10 system computer - just the way I
did with my old, standard, MathCAD 7 version.
??With my old standard version, I simply transferred the old file into
the new computer, using the same file file structure, onto the C drive
of the new machine - and it worked !
No fancy installation with codes and passwords required - I was amazed !
If anyone can help me to acquire? the "Professional" version, I`m happy
to pay for the? file and the service. Ron.
?
Failing that can anyone suggest a modern software package with an easy learning curve to replace the MathCad 7 Professional?
Preferably something without being locked into passwords, auto-billing, and endless updates that prevent work being done (like Microsoft's products).
Bear in mind all his old files will have to be edited.
I realize this is likely to open a can of worms so please be objective to the requirements.
PeterB
|
Re: What happened to HP/Agilent detailed circuit schematics
Alwyn,
?
You are quite correct, the military had stringent documentation requirements and they were willing to pay. Things have flipped indeed when it comes to dual use items. Nowadays, ITAR looms over the T&M industry, to the point that even data sheets for semiconductors are on the sparse side. Pictures of chips are blurred out with only bonding pads visible. Quite the opposite from what the military wanted during the cold war days.
?
The T&M business is, relatively speaking, small. Keysight annual revenue is ~USD 5.5B. The environmental impact from this segment is tiny compared to the damage inflicted by bored consumers. Even so, some instruments are highly repairable via assembly replacement without any need for factory software or schematics. You can take a board out of one analyzer and plug it into another. What little calibration is needed does not require any factory software. The caveat is, you swap the whole board. From an industrial or military customer's standpoint, this is probably the best solution they can hope for.
?
Vladan
?
On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 01:54 AM, alwyn.seeds1 wrote:
Dear All,
?
One of the issues has been change of customer requirements. Back in the HP Days, the US and other military customers did component level equipment repair; they therefore required complete service documentation, the structure of which was defined down to the typefaces to be used. Those customers met the very considerable cost of creating this documentation. Post Cold-War, the military customers changed their repair policy, the proportion of business that was military reduced and the manufacturers responded accordingly.
?
We are very fortunate that both HP and Tektronix made much of the documentation available to all customers. Other manufacturers, such as Rohde and Schwarz, did not.
?
Regards,
?
Alwyn
|
OT MathCad 7 Professional
Asking for a friend, his words:
?
About 30 years ago I started using MathCAD for most of my calculations.
It used standard algebraic display of equations - which after Fortran
seemed so easy ....
I eventually got MathCAD 7 for use with my consulting work? - Was great !
Many years later, I bought MathCAD 13 - and found - to my dismay - that
they (Mathsoft) had not made it backward compatible !
All my old files needed to be seriously modified!? ---- So I stayed with
Version 7 .
My MathCAD 7 was the "standard" version - not the "Professional" version
- although both used the same manual !
Some functions were not available in my standard version - in
particular, "DO" loops !
I managed for years without them --- but then, about 3 years ago, my
requirement for large iterative calculations got to be basically
impossible using my "work-arounds".
I am 82 years old - and not keen to learn a whole new language --- so I
wondered if I could buy an old "used" version of? Mathcad 7
"professional"? ? Is such a thing done?
I would hope to put it on my Windows 10 system computer - just the way I
did with my old, standard, MathCAD 7 version.
??With my old standard version, I simply transferred the old file into
the new computer, using the same file file structure, onto the C drive
of the new machine - and it worked !
No fancy installation with codes and passwords required - I was amazed !
If anyone can help me to acquire? the "Professional" version, I`m happy
to pay for the? file and the service. Ron.
?
Failing that can anyone suggest a modern software package with an easy learning curve to replace the MathCad 7 Professional?
Preferably something without being locked into passwords, auto-billing, and endless updates that prevent work being done (like Microsoft's products).
Bear in mind all his old files will have to be edited.
I realize this is likely to open a can of worms so please be objective to the requirements.
PeterB
|
Re: What happened to HP/Agilent detailed circuit schematics
On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 01:55 AM, Nik Milosevic wrote:
so the contractors definitely have repair procedures and schematics (and sign strict NDA's to be able to get them)
Could you imagine the outrage if, say, Ford required NDAs to be signed by independent repair facilities (or even backyard mechanics) just to be able to purchase the instructions, gaskets, and the special tool required to align the camshaft to the crankshaft in order to replace the head gaskets on their engines??? That's how much this mentality (Apple is certainly one of the largest offenders) that has infiltrated the electronic device industry has eroded consumer trust from those of us who know more than just how to turn the device on and off.
?
If I can't fix it myself if I had the desire to do so, I really doubt that I actually need it.? Until the rest of the tech-types in the world reach that realization, making the manufacturers change that mentality would be much more difficult than herding cats.
|
Re: What happened to HP/Agilent detailed circuit schematics
How would you replace a bad FPGA? (Assume BGA, please, and internal data storage).? How would you replace a bad mask programmed microprocessor (or even one that isn't)?
Programming hardware (to write to the chip) is generally 100 to 400 dollars depending on manufacturer, let alone the program to run it.? There are exceptions, of course.? ATMEL is reasonable, ST Micro is reasonable, others I have no experience with.
I use a very limited spectrum of chips in my designs for just such a reason.
Harvey
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On 8/27/2024 12:01 AM, Frank Mashockie wrote: Chuck,
Fair enough.? I get your point.? I think you could have used a better example though.? I understand the difficulties in passing legislation.? I already stated that I don't think legislation is the best way.
The difference between your example and mine is that the average consumer does not have the tools to manufacturer lightbulb filaments.? But they can easily grab the tools to repair their own electronics.? Especially if the manufacturers provided them the resources like they used to.
Also, IMO the main factor that decides whether or not a repair is economically viable is time.? And what sets aside modern equipment from older ones is that service resources aren't made available anymore.? Which makes repair longer.? I have no problem getting modern equipment repaired as fast as older equipment when the schematics/service tools are available.? In fact, sometimes the modern stuff is quicker.? SMD work is faster than thru hole IMO.
-Frank
|
Dear Jaret hi. Thank you for your reply. I had a suspicion that it my be the button in the panel. I will order a set and I hope that it will resolve the problem because I can't find any problem in the circuits . Thank you again.? My best regards? Nick SV1VS?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
-------- Original message -------- From: "Jared Cabot via groups.io" <jaredcabot@...> Date: 8/26/24 19:36 (GMT+02:00) Subject: Re: [HP-Agilent-Keysight-equipment] E4418B
I had a similar problem with mine, the power button barely worked at all.
?
It turned out to be a worn out mylar button membrane under the rubber button caps.
?
You can buy them relatively cheaply on Aliexpress and Ebay if you shop around a bit and they aren't too hard to replace.
?
There are a couple tricks to do the replacement though, so report back if you do decide to replace it and I can help you through it before you accidentally break something. :)
?
It's also worth replacing the internal battery too before your instrument gets amnesia and forgets what it is (model and revision data etc is kept in battery backed RAM), just be sure to take photos of all the serial number and revision number data in the menu there somewhere.
Keysight have simple instructions on how to reprogram the model data, as long as you know what it is... ;)
?
?
Regards
Jared
|
Re: What happened to HP/Agilent detailed circuit schematics
I agree 100%.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On 8/27/2024 8:42 AM, Frank Mashockie via groups.io wrote: I think some of you are missing the point.? You're telling me (as if to be reassurred this is how its supposed to be) that because the manufacturers themselves are no longer doing component level repair of PCBs, that is how it is supposed to be?? Then we are even worse off then I originally thought!? That still doesn't solve the issue.? Typically (at least for lab equipment I work on) the most expensive component to replace is the main PCB. It also tends to be on backorder the most.? So when you have a failure, the consumer is going to get rid of this product for something new.? And that needs to stop.? That's my point.? The fact that the technology is newer or more complex is a cop out.? It can still be repaired and quite easily if the resources are made available.? You can't tell me that HP/Agilent/etc don't still create schematics and service manuals for their instruments - they just keep them proprietary now.? We have better tools now to do component level repair than ever before; and now you're telling me we don't do it because its too hard? Thats ridiculous.
Also, in my experience, these manufacturers aren't even willing to sell replacement parts unless the repair is completed by a 'qualified service tech'.? I run into this all the time. And then they inflate the price of cost and labor for repair since you have no other choice but to go to them (believe me I do my best to find another way - thats my job).? So please don't make this issue sound like the manufacturer is just adjusting with the times.? They have great incentive to keep it this way.
-Frank
|
Re: What happened to HP/Agilent detailed circuit schematics
I think some of you are missing the point.? You're telling me (as if to be reassurred this is how its supposed to be) that because the manufacturers themselves are no longer doing component level repair of PCBs, that is how it is supposed to be?? Then we are even worse off then I originally thought!? That still doesn't solve the issue.? Typically (at least for lab equipment I work on) the most expensive component to replace is the main PCB. It also tends to be on backorder the most.? So when you have a failure, the consumer is going to get rid of this product for something new.? And that needs to stop.? That's my point.? The fact that the technology is newer or more complex is a cop out.? It can still be repaired and quite easily if the resources are made available.? You can't tell me that HP/Agilent/etc don't still create schematics and service manuals for their instruments - they just keep them proprietary now.? We have better tools now to do component level repair than ever before; and now you're telling me we don't do it because its too hard? Thats ridiculous.
?
Also, in my experience, these manufacturers aren't even willing to sell replacement parts unless the repair is completed by a 'qualified service tech'.? I run into this all the time.? And then they inflate the price of cost and labor for repair since you have no other choice but to go to them (believe me I do my best to find another way - thats my job).? So please don't make this issue sound like the manufacturer is just adjusting with the times.? They have great incentive to keep it this way.??
?
-Frank
|
Re: What happened to HP/Agilent detailed circuit schematics
I hear R&S makes some nice gear, I don't have any.? Pretty much unrepairable.
I was given a very nice R&S transceiver that pretty much worked but has some problems.? Unrepairable, even with module swap, due to recalibration being necessary.? And special software is required which is not released outside the company.? The cost to get that done far exceeds the value of the radio, if R&S would even perform the work for an individual, which they won't.? What a turn-off.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On 8/27/2024 4:54 AM, alwyn.seeds1 via groups.io wrote: Dear All,
One of the issues has been change of customer requirements. Back in the HP Days, the US and other military customers did component level equipment repair; they therefore required complete service documentation, the structure of which was defined down to the typefaces to be used. Those customers met the very considerable cost of creating this documentation. Post Cold-War, the military customers changed their repair policy, the proportion of business that was military reduced and the manufacturers responded accordingly.
We are very fortunate that both HP and Tektronix made much of the documentation available to all customers. Other manufacturers, such as Rohde and Schwarz, did not.
Regards,
Alwyn
_____________________________________________________
Alwyn Seeds, Director
SynOptika Ltd.,
114 Beaufort Street,
London,
SW3 6BU,
England.
SynOptika Ltd., Registered in England and Wales: No. 04606737
Registered Office: 114 Beaufort Street, London, SW3 6BU, United Kingdom.
_____________________________________________________
|
Re: What happened to HP/Agilent detailed circuit schematics
I don't agree that programming a custom chip is difficult.? Chip programmers are cheap and plentiful on the market and common with hobbyists.
What may be uneconomical for a manufacturer might be very economical in a repair situation.
Take two examples:
A manufacturer considers it uneconomical to repair a PCB, but they have no stock of replacement boards.? This forces the customer to purchase an entirely new instrument instead of repairing what might be a simple fault.? This might be a win for the manufacturer but the customer sees it as a costly loss.
An aerospace or military customer has approved test procedures which involve very specific pieces of test equipment which are no longer supported.? Changing the procedures would be enormously expensive due to the approval process, far in excess of the cost of new equipment.
The manufacturing processes themselves may be easier than they seem.? For example replacing a BGA part on a modern PCB seems to be a daunting maybe impossible task but with the right equipment and skills even sidewalk vendors in some Chinese cities can do it successfully right there in front of you in a few minutes.
Sure, I've repaired many pieces of equipment without any service info but it can be hit or miss.? Most frequently, and for most people, the difference between repairable and not is that of documentation.
Peter
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On 8/26/2024 11:40 PM, Chuck Harris via groups.io wrote: Sadly, I didn't think you would understand...
I inferred your desire to share in proprietary manufacturing
processes from what you were asking.
Programming a custom chip is a part of the manufacturing process
(just like forging a tungsten filament). It requires specialized
equipment, and specialized knowledge that most are incapable of
understanding even if it is spoon fed to them.
We think nothing of replacing the whole light bulb, when the
filament burns out (although that hasn't always been the case)...
Why is it so hard to understand that like a light bulb, a modern
circuit board can also be uneconomical to repair?
-Chuck Harris
On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 14:46:49 -0700 "Frank Mashockie"
<fmashockie@...> wrote:
Nice try smart ass.? Where did I say share their manufacturing
process?
|
Re: HP8566B - Making sense of the figures
That's very noble of you, Ozan. And if it's of any reassurance, leaving everything I own to animal charities has been my plan all along and I made a Will out to that effect many years ago. Now a working 8566B will become a part of that estate and add some useful value to it!
One final time: THANK YOU!
|
Re: What happened to HP/Agilent detailed circuit schematics
Dear All,
One of the issues has been change of customer requirements. Back in the HP Days, the US and other military customers did component level equipment repair; they therefore required complete service documentation, the structure of which was defined down to the typefaces to be used. Those customers met the very considerable cost of creating this documentation. Post Cold-War, the military customers changed their repair policy, the proportion of business that was military reduced and the manufacturers responded accordingly.
We are very fortunate that both HP and Tektronix made much of the documentation available to all customers. Other manufacturers, such as Rohde and Schwarz, did not.
Regards,
Alwyn
_____________________________________________________
Alwyn Seeds, Director
SynOptika Ltd.,
114 Beaufort Street,
London,
SW3 6BU,
England.
SynOptika Ltd., Registered in England and Wales: No. 04606737
Registered Office: 114 Beaufort Street, London, SW3 6BU, United Kingdom. _____________________________________________________
|
Re: What happened to HP/Agilent detailed circuit schematics
While the commercial reasons for poor repair documentation are easy to appreciate, this is an example of where the most profitable route is not best for society as a whole. There are many such examples in other fields and it's why we empower government to legislate and enforce more socially-acceptable behaviour.
?
For example, insider trading, competition law, and even very specific examples such as laws in some countries to prevent car manufacturers from limiting access to service information to their own agents. Users then have a meaningful right to choose their mechanic (including themselves). Yes, there are safety and cost implications and these are considered when these laws are made. There are also safety and cost implications of making a product that is not dangerous. Manufacturers are still expected to abide by them.
?
So yes, it's a problem affecting profitability for manufacturers. But profitability is not an absolute right (even in America). In a well-governed society, manufacturers have to expect to incur some costs that are of wider benefit to society. Otherwise, they are not respecting that society and cannot be considered a productive member of it just like a sociopath or criminal. It's not a choice. If those standards mean that the product is not economically viable, then so be it.
|
Re: What happened to HP/Agilent detailed circuit schematics
Nik, what you describe is broadly speaking correct for Keysight too. They too have people who estimate the need for new and rebuilt assemblies for the period after product obsolescence. If an instrument cosnists of a giant board with everything expensive on it, that board will be repaired at the factory or at the CM if it's worth doing. Keep in mind though that Keysight has thousands of products in support, which is different from Apple.
?
I can't say anything about the level of repair difficulty when comparing Apple and Keysight products. Apple products are made in extremely high volumes. Even the best selling Keysight items are "cottage industry" in comparison. Another difference is the end user. In Apple's case it's the general population, which is very different from selling to manufacturers (like Apple). Another big difference is the life cycle. A seven year old Apple phone is considered past it's expected life span.
?
These days, parts and assembliess from Keysight become unavailable pretty soon after the required support period ends. For example, recently I was not able to get a LCD panel for an instrument they stopped making less than six years ago. Regarding CLIPS, they do of course exist, but many aren't formatted for presentation outside of the company. There is a lot of cost cutting and it will only get worse in that regard.
?
Vladan
|
Re: What happened to HP/Agilent detailed circuit schematics
Im not sure thats quite the whole story Vladan, or at least it wasnt for me in the early 2000's when i worked for Applecare Engineering. You dont simply create all the spare assemblies you think you will need for the projected lifetime of a range of equipment. You create the equipment and calculated (based on past product data) how many spares/assemblies you will need, and when someone needs a spare you send one out and the old one is returned. The returned one are not simply thrown out, and you dont create as many as you think you will need but a percentage of how many is required.
If a returned part is serviceable, that is it isnt burnt or damaged in some way as to make it expensive/unreliable/unusable to repair, that part would be component level repaired and put back into service stock after testing. Third party component level repair contractors were doing the repairs for different regions, for Apple at least. These repairs need to follow procedures and process specified by manufacturer (within Applecare Engineering for Apple products from my experience) so the contractors definitely have repair procedures and schematics (and sign strict NDA's to be able to get them) . We (me as an Applecare engineer in my case) would go certify the contractor when they take on these contracts and when they take on new products, to ensure the repair line and all procedures/processes were followed to meet Apple's specifications. I know other computer companies and equipment manufacturers also followed the same procedures.
This wasnt? some isolated Apple magic management practice to get maximum efficiency while meeting consumer protection laws from various regions, this was done by most other large tech manufacturers also to the best of my knowledge. When the product support requirements ended, any remaining stock of spares, if there were any, were sold off to recoup any money and space. Components for component level repairs were the only thing that were ordered as needed once the production lines closed on a product, and hopefully your calculations were correct on the number of spare assemblies that were created to meet service requirements, and they usually were from memory.
I think the existence of these CLIP files after the 80's reinforces the idea that component level repair procedures were still created (probably to this day), just not released like they were prior to the 90's.
My 2cents worth.
|
Re: What happened to HP/Agilent detailed circuit schematics
When the supply chain fails as happened with Covid, it could even become a national security issue when companies are unable rather than unwilling to make timely repairs¡and where new equipment might not be readily available ignoring e-waste
and financial aspects.
|
Re: What happened to HP/Agilent detailed circuit schematics
Frank,
?
I will tell you something interesting. At Keysight, they still have a few people who repair broken in house equipment (e.g. for the R&D lab). However, if they have to dig deeper than described in the service manual, they will just swap an entire assembly. If the assembly is no longer available, they will reply that they can't fix the instrument, it's too old.
Manufacturing has become incredibly efficient at large companies, it just isn't economically justifiable to spend time on complex repairs. Even way back in the good old days when service manuals had everything in them, production line techs had a time limit to find a problem or else scrap an assembly.
?
Vladan
?
?
On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 08:47 PM, Frank Mashockie wrote:
Vladan,
?
I really appreciate your input as you do have the advantage of all 3 vantage points.? I am not a designer.? I am a consumer and a professional repair engineer.? And I think you take my comment "for the sharing of information and community knowledge" lightly and I think that is a mistake.? I guess there a those who believe in an open source method of sharing information and those that do not.? I think the former has greater benefits to society.
?
This is something that affects all of us negatively whether you want to believe it or not.? Making things more difficult to repair (i.e. not providing service manuals, schematics, etc.) has negative consequences both directly and indirectly.? It hinders growth for those who need the equipment.? It hurts small businesses and allows bigger ones to continue to flourish.? The amount of money I save my company by providing them in-house services and drastically reducing their reliance on manufacturers is significant.? What is absurd to me is that the manufacturers who provide our equipment have told me directly (real quote) "we do not support customer repair of our instruments".? To add to that absurdity we all consider ourselves scientists.? We should be supporting one another to do good science, not hinder it.??
?
And then of course there is the toll on the environment created by all the waste repair preventation strategies bring.? The manufacturers don't deserve all the blame.? Consumers share the blame, too.? So its a problem that has many implications.? I think it is our duty as engineers to fix it.
?
-Frank
|
Re: What happened to HP/Agilent detailed circuit schematics
Yes, times have changed and that is what the OP lamented. Until around 1990, it was still economical to have an in-house repair department that could find a bad IC or transistor. Almost everyone shopped first at HP and Tek because the equipment was very well made and serviceable. The lack of documentation is probably the main reason I never bought any R&S or Anritsu equipment even though both made some nice products over the years.
?
I suspect that if there is a competitive advantage to publishing detailed documentation while charging the required amount to stay in business, someone would do that. Yet, nobody is stepping forward. Also, keep in mind that the number of skilled repair technicians is diminishing. Production lines are mostly using operators to make adjustments via software. There aren't many people left who are willing/able to find an open 5 mil trace somewhere inside a 16 layer circuit board with FPGAs. Tinkering with modern cars and electronics isn't much fun any more. I have a mix of old and new equipment. I like them both, but for very different reasons.
?
Vladan
|
Re: What happened to HP/Agilent detailed circuit schematics
Chuck,
Fair enough.? I get your point.? I think you could have used a better example though.? I understand the difficulties in passing legislation.? I already stated that I don't think legislation is the best way.??
?
The difference between your example and mine is that the average consumer does not have the tools to manufacturer lightbulb filaments.? But they can easily grab the tools to repair their own electronics.? Especially if the manufacturers provided them the resources like they used to.
?
Also, IMO the main factor that decides whether or not a repair is economically viable is time.? And what sets aside modern equipment from older ones is that service resources aren't made available anymore.? Which makes repair longer.? I have no problem getting modern equipment repaired as fast as older equipment when the schematics/service tools are available.? In fact, sometimes the modern stuff is quicker.? SMD work is faster than thru hole IMO.??
?
-Frank
?
?
|
Re: What happened to HP/Agilent detailed circuit schematics
Vladan,
?
I really appreciate your input as you do have the advantage of all 3 vantage points.? I am not a designer.? I am a consumer and a professional repair engineer.? And I think you take my comment "for the sharing of information and community knowledge" lightly and I think that is a mistake.? I guess there a those who believe in an open source method of sharing information and those that do not.? I think the former has greater benefits to society.
?
This is something that affects all of us negatively whether you want to believe it or not.? Making things more difficult to repair (i.e. not providing service manuals, schematics, etc.) has negative consequences both directly and indirectly.? It hinders growth for those who need the equipment.? It hurts small businesses and allows bigger ones to continue to flourish.? The amount of money I save my company by providing them in-house services and drastically reducing their reliance on manufacturers is significant.? What is absurd to me is that the manufacturers who provide our equipment have told me directly (real quote) "we do not support customer repair of our instruments".? To add to that absurdity we all consider ourselves scientists.? We should be supporting one another to do good science, not hinder it.??
?
And then of course there is the toll on the environment created by all the waste repair preventation strategies bring.? The manufacturers don't deserve all the blame.? Consumers share the blame, too.? So its a problem that has many implications.? I think it is our duty as engineers to fix it.
?
-Frank
?
?
|
Frank Mashockie
Jinxie
Nik Milosevic