开云体育

Sorry I don't have any that go up that high on the volts scale only to 50 I don't know if you could detach the clear ring from the knob part and reglue another knob onto it I have knobs in good shape with the black ring inside the front opening I probably have a shaft also just need the length have a bunch of different lengths.

Jim

Reginald,
There is a site you can go to that is a repository for all things Tektronix they have manuals, booklets Tek publications and info and spec descriptions on lots of Tek hardware. It is named tekwiki here is the link for the site.



Jim O

Hi Jim,
No, I have not been successful yet. I've attached pictures of both knobs. In case the attachments don't go through, the clear flange on the Volts/ Division knobs are marked 5, 10, 20, 50 mV, then .1, .2, .5, 1, 2, 5, 10, 20, 50, 100, 200, 500 V. the red cal knob button does have a black band and face. I have both red cal knobs. The phenolic is broken on both Volts/ Division knobs and one of the shafts for the red & black knob is missing.
Bob

I had some from a company around Orlando that was 80/20. I thought that was odd, but it was in the original containers. We also got tons of what the wave solder machines in the area skimmed as waste. We sold it to a company that made cheap solder to re-refine. Another source was from a company that made marine wiring harnesses. 30 years ago, there were a lot of companies in Orlando using tons of solder.

Did you do any work with reflow ovens?

I never used a wave solder machine, but we had three reflow ovens at Microdyne. Two older 'pizza oven' models, and a new Heller with computer controlled, multiple zone operation that stored the profile for every board that we built.


Michael A. Terrell

Does anyone know of a published list? The former Tek repair guy that helped me revive my 465 had one, but wouldn't share it. I have no desire to get into the scope repair business, but I do want to be able to maintain the 485 I just got. The "selected from" is helpful, but it at least in the 465 there were house marked devices with no information.

I have on hand about 100 lbs of 63/37 solder bars
that came from the wave soldering machine of one of
your competitors at microdyne. I know it is what
they used because it came with the wave soldering
machine when it was scrapped.

Also, when I worked for DEI back in the '70s, they
used 63/37 for their reflow machines.

On boards that get solder plated, the alloy is somewhat
imprecise, and it is possible that the imprecision of
that plated alloy will have diluted the 63/37 solder
to make it have a higher melting point.

But as a former solder plater, I can assure you that
we tried very hard not to let the alloy shift much
because it made the reflow process fail.

-Chuck Harris



Michael A. Terrell wrote:
...
Also, keep in mind that the solder used for wave soldering has a higher melting
temperature than that used for hand soldering. If you don't get it all out on the
first try, refill the through hole with 63/37 solder and try again.

Seems I also need to reassess my rule of changing the "To" line first when passing on an email. This was meant for my nephew but neverless Im sure others may have dug out their old RS iron to give it another try. Before the Hakko 470 I preferred and iron and plunger type sucker.

On this same subject, I see similar looking tips for the Hakko from cheaper similar style desoldering guns and wonder if they fit. Hakko tips are 20 - 50 bucks while the others a just a few dollars. Anyone tried them and can say how they fit?

Dave

I repaired hundreds of Commodore 64 computers with one, along with a lot of test equipment and computer motherboards. You can do bad work with any desoldering tool. You need to practice on scrap PC boards, if you aren't familiar with the process. Also, keep in mind that the solder used for wave soldering has a higher melting temperature than that used for hand soldering. If you don't get it all out on the first try, refill the through hole with 63/37 solder and try again. Also, wait until the solder has melted all the way through the board. It helps to be able to see the other side of the board. In some cases, there is a heavy trace or copper pour on the other side so you need to use a different method. The end of the tip needs to be kept clean, and do not suck any flux into the hollow tip. It will dissolve some of the metal each time you do.


Michael A. Terrell

Hey Mike, you know that iron I have with the red bulb. Ive used it but perhaps I need to try it again and reassess its crappyness UD

... According to the service manual, SW 4
enables/disables power on SRQ, which doesn't seem relevant to
distinguishing a 495 from a 492AP. I have checked the function switches
multiple times with an ohmmeter and they seem to function as expected. I
am looking for some definitive guidance on setting these switches.

The documentation is definitely incomplete and downright questionable in places (and that includes the notes on ko4bb.com from various people including myself). If you've found a combination that allows the unit to boot up and identify itself correctly as a 495P, you can consider the problem solved.

-- john, KE5FX

I'm lazy in the same way most of the time. Also, I was uploading new photos to an existing folder I own on another .io group and had an amazing difficult time. The photos would load but not show up.? Took about 2 hours to get the hand full of photos loaded and sorted out.? What a waste of time!
-Dave

From: stefan_trethan <stefan_trethan@...>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2018 7:22 AM
Subject: Re: [TekScopes] When Posting Photos Please include the following...

I'm lazy and most times can't be bothered to log into groups.io, let
alone search for some photo.
Unless you provide a freely available direct link I probably won't look at it.
I realize that is no great loss to anyone, but just wanted to point
out if you want your photos seen a direct link (ideally with no login)
is in your own interest.

There are many free services that host photos and let you share them
via a URL, such as google photos.
Tinypic also worked great but now they have annoying ads.
For archival purposes the group photo space might be ideal, but for
accessibility it's almost as bad as Yahoo was.

ST


On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 4:08 PM, Dennis Tillman W7PF
<dennis@...> wrote:

Just a reminder:
If you announce to TekScopes members that you posted photo(s) to a TekScopes
photo album please include a link to their exact location, the title of the
photo album, and if it was created some time prior to your post date, the
creation date of the album.

If you take a moment to these three things in your announcement it will save
everyone interested in looking at your photos the time it takes to hunt
through the photo albums.

Yes, I know you can order the albums by date created or by title. Don't
assume your photo album will be looked at immediately in which case it can
be quickly found by creation date. Consider the case where someone reads
your post years later and wants to see the photos.

Dennis Tillman W7PF



--
Dennis Tillman W7PF
TekScopes Moderator

On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 07:20 AM, satbeginner wrote:

So, my (probably) premature conclusion is: the FET I ordered should work fine.
It's capacity does not have any effect on the rise-and-fall times, it's own
turn-on time is way smaller than the applied pulse, and the ON-resistance is
lower, so dissipation should be lower.

Yes, my gut feeling too : from the data I collected previously, basically the worse FET's have about twice the gate charge than desired. So even if the driver circuit had zero headroom to drive that extra charge, it means the rise time would double, so twice the power dissipation. But RDson is about 10 times lower, so 10 times less power dissipated... so overall the power dissipation would be, at least, 5 times less. Back of the envelope calculation of course, but sounds half reasonable to me...

So yeah, basically pretty much an modern FET would work then...

Still, it's always interesting to learn more about the design aspect of things, understand in enough detail what parameters need to be considered... measure things, quantify things... so we actually understand what we are doing/what's going in the circuit.. rather than just slap some FET, see the scope come back to life and call it done ^^

But... as interesting as it would be, I have other stuff to do in the lab at the moment.

Would be nice to have an actual engineering familiar with this stuff, to tell us all about this. Where we are wrong, what we have failed to consider/take into account etc... boy I miss school time, was great to have a couple electronic teachers I could bombard every day with all my technical questions...
Now I am on my own, making guesstimates on a forum ! LOL

Still, keeps my brain going...


Vincent Trouilliez

On Thu, 26 Jul 2018 09:50:56 -0700, you wrote:

Actually I was asking about compatibility of 7000 series scope plug-in latches with 5000 series scope plug-ins.? ?Not TM500/5000 series modules.? ?But I can check for myself this evening when I get home from work.?

Basically, no.

TM500 looks identical to 5000 series scope plugin latches. I think
they made 5000 series scopes with the same frames and decided to have
the same board designs, but different signals and incompatible keying.

Harvey

Thanks.
Jim


Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
-------- Original message --------From: "Colin Herbert via Groups.Io" <colingherbert@...> Date: 7/26/18 8:58 AM (GMT-08:00) To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [TekScopes] Compatibility between Series-5000 and TM500/TM5000 latches
Jim,
I have a 7623A scope with about 13 plug-ins and a TM503 and TM504 with four plug-ins (and another to come). I can tell you that the latches for the 7000-series and TM500-series are NOT the same. I hope that clears up some of your queries.
Colin.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jim Ford
Sent: 26 July 2018 16:39
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [TekScopes] Compatibility between Series-5000 and TM500/TM5000 latches

Following with interest because I own a 5103N/D10 with two 5A15N and one 5B10N plug-in from which a previous owner removed the latching mechanisms.? Didn't want somebody removing the plug-ins, I guess.
Well, I would really like to have the latching mechanisms if possible.? Wondering if the mechanisms are the same on the 7000 series plug-ins I have.
Thanks.
Jim.

On Thu, 26 Jul 2018 08:39:28 -0700, you wrote:

Following with interest because I own a 5103N/D10 with two 5A15N and one 5B10N plug-in from which a previous owner removed the latching mechanisms.? Didn't want somebody removing the plug-ins, I guess.
Well, I would really like to have the latching mechanisms if possible.? Wondering if the mechanisms are the same on the 7000 series plug-ins I have.

From what I understand:

TM500, two varieties of latching mechanisms, one (I think the earlier
one) more prone to breaking than the later one.

TM5000, one latch mechanism. I can 3D print these.

7000 series scopes, very different latch mechanism, I have some spare
parts, but the tabs are only for a limited number of plugins, mostly
7A18, 7A26 and a few horizontal ones. Generally these don't break.

5000 series scopes, looked identical for the one style (pull tab pulls
zig-zag bar which lifts latch)

Harvey

Thanks.
Jim


Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
-------- Original message --------From: "Colin Herbert via Groups.Io" <colingherbert@...> Date: 7/26/18 8:14 AM (GMT-08:00) To: [email protected] Subject: [TekScopes] Compatibility between Series-5000 and TM500/TM5000 latches
Hi,
I know there have been enquiries as to whether the back-plane connections of these two series are compatible, but that is not the question that I am asking. I am wondering if the mechanical latching mechanism, with all of its parts, is the same between these series. The manuals are not very clear. Does anyone have any information on this? I am interested because I am considering buying a parts-donor 5A22N to provide latch components for my FG 504.
TIA, Colin.

On 7/26/2018 10:20 AM, satbeginner wrote:

Hi all,

Bruce, thanks for your addition, for now I only can test "dry", so without the PS actually working, because the FET's and diode's are not here yet.

But I did some measurements on the driver signal driving the gate of the FET (without a FET installed)

The switcher in my scope does free run at 66,5kHz / 15usec, and delivers zero-going OFF-pulses with a 2usec width.
Rise and fall times are about 100nsec each.

I measured the same signals, but now with a 1nF capacitor installed at the G-S pins.
Basically, what I see is that there is no difference in the rise-and-fall times, only the high level (in between the low 2usec pulses) becomes a bit dirty.
But since the FET is switching ON around 3,5V - 4V, the part of the signal that becomes dirty is way beyond the point where the FET switches "ON", so that should not be a problem.

So, my (probably) premature conclusion is: the FET I ordered should work fine.
It's capacity does not have any effect on the rise-and-fall times, it's own turn-on time is way smaller than the applied pulse, and the ON-resistance is lower, so dissipation should be lower.

But, we all know Mr. Murphy (only few people know he actually was an optimist) so -as always- the proof of the pudding will be in the eating....

I took some pictures of the signals and I put them in the album again: /g/TekScopes/album?id=64919&p=pcreated,,,20,1,0,0

To be continued,

Un saludo,

Leo

"I measured the same signals, but now with a 1nF capacitor installed at the G-S pins. Basically, what I see is that there is no difference in the rise-and-fall times,"

I find this somewhat amazing, because when I did the same test, I did see a much larger difference between having the cap in or out.
Unfortunately, I can't pull up any pictures from that time but that was from several years ago and senior memory (84Y) doesn't improve with time.

You might even think about doing a ringing test on the transformer, I've replaced a few of these over the years.

-Bert

The Heyco reference was mine. They make those plastic, snap in strain reliefs.

It looks like the original Belden part number was: KH5442-290D I found this by searching the Tektronix part number and locating the NSN references. Unfortunately, the description is vague. It is listed as three conductor, and 7.5 feet long with stripped leads on one end.


Michael A. Terrell

Actually I was asking about compatibility of 7000 series scope plug-in latches with 5000 series scope plug-ins.? ?Not TM500/5000 series modules.? ?But I can check for myself this evening when I get home from work.?
Thanks.
Jim


Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone

Back in February of this year, there was a similar thread titled "Replacing power cords..." There were some ideas there, including a source called Heyco (?)
Good Luck, Colin.

Jim,
I have a 7623A scope with about 13 plug-ins and a TM503 and TM504 with four plug-ins (and another to come). I can tell you that the latches for the 7000-series and TM500-series are NOT the same. I hope that clears up some of your queries.
Colin.

I am continuing to troubleshoot an A54 memory board for a 495P and have run into conflicting info re settings of option switch S1050 on this board. Four different sources seem to give conflicting settings, and these settings do not correspond to what seems to work in my 495P. Two of my sources are service manuals and two are notes published on the web. I am assuming that the references to settings correspond to the switch numbers embossed on the DIP switch, and the Open/Closed designation corresponds to the Open marking on the DIP switch. With a known good memory board installed, and SW 4 Open, all other switches closed, the SA boot up with a message indicating a 495P with v9.7 firmware and works as expected. When I change SW 4 to Closed, with all other switches Closed, it boots up as a 492AP with v9.7 firmware, 492P initial settings on the screen, and a Tuning Error - First LO error message. According to the service manual, SW 4 enables/disables power on SRQ, which doesn't seem relevant to distinguishing a 495 from a 492AP. I have checked the function switches multiple times with an ohmmeter and they seem to function as expected. I am looking for some definitive guidance on setting these switches.

Rick
K8EZB.