Test Equipment Anonymous (TEA) group therapy thread

[bd139]

Random purchase. Decided to treat myself to another NanoVNA, this time a genuine one from Mirfield Electronics here who are an official reseller. No hooky ones any more 

Very good company. Pay via PayPal checkout. Arrived next day RM 1st class 

https://www.mirfield-electronics.co.uk/

Has it got a CE mark on it? Does the power supply fit a 13A socket without an adaptor?

Nope. No power supply. Just usb cable. No CE mark.

It’s still shit from China. Just genuine shit from China rather than cloned shit from China 

Edit: also it doesn’t require CE marking now as of 1st jan. UKCA. More fun!

[SilverSolder]

When I drove my first automatic the engine stalled at the first traffic light. It took me too many sweaty minutes to realize that you have to put it in neutral before you can start the engine again 

There must have been a problem with the engine then for it to stall. I have never known an automatic to stall its engine ever, so from that point of view they were safer.

You haven't driven many American cars from the 1970's and early 1980's, have you? Smog controls and carburetors. Stalling was all part of the fun. 

But thats just it, with an auto, there is no clutch, you have a fluid flywheel with a torque convertor so the drive train was connected via the fluid flywheel which would slip when the car was stationary in drive because there was no clutch. Thats just how they were designed to do, whereas a manual you had to press the clutch down to disconnect the drive train to prevent the engine from stalling. So with an automatic, if it stalls, there has to be a reason for it stalling as the oil in the flywheel / torque convertor forms the clutch and is only too willing to slip when the drive train is prevented from turning due the brakes for example being applied and thus preventing the wheels from being driven.

You can't stall them by fumbling the clutch, but I remember many American cars of the era didn't like having the accelerator "jabbed" quickly - they would rev up, and crash right down to zero when you did!  -  so a different problem, but the car is just as dead in the water...

[mnementh]

I blame my very very rusty German translation non skills. I read it as included. If that is the case really strange to split them 

I'm always suspicious when the seller says he doesn't know enough about the device to tell if it's working, but does seem to know enough to disassemble it and sell them separately.

McBryce.

Yes, IMO they try to make more money by selling two items. I've known a seller who did this for model aircraft stuff (e.g. selling the model and the motor separately). I don't by from such sellers.

Agreed on the principle for consumer electronics; the thrift stores around here do that with the power packs & cords and it is infuriating to find a neato bit of gear and not be able to power it up.

Not so much in the specific case of RC models. Most RC model hobbyists, aviation or otherwise, that I know prefer to choose their own motor(s) for a build, not what someone else threw on there and didn't like or couldn't make it fly/drive right. When you buy a model kit new, you expect to buy the motor separately (Aside from entry-level ARF/ARD kits). I see no reason to expect it to be thrown in for a used model.

I don't consider any unknown motor(s) to be a "value added" prospect... with very few exceptions, the prices of such combos are considerably more than the value of the used model alone, unless the motor(s) is/are described as blown up and they're thrown in for the cost of freight.



mnem

[mnementh]

Bargain find of the morning eBay auction: #324465690179 Retail price 30 years ago was less     

Is that even a soldering iron? Looks like a wood-burning iron; and at least on the ones made by Weller, they used a different thread on the tips.

mnem
*blerk*

[med6753]

When I drove my first automatic the engine stalled at the first traffic light. It took me too many sweaty minutes to realize that you have to put it in neutral before you can start the engine again 

There must have been a problem with the engine then for it to stall. I have never known an automatic to stall its engine ever, so from that point of view they were safer.

You haven't driven many American cars from the 1970's and early 1980's, have you? Smog controls and carburetors. Stalling was all part of the fun. 

But thats just it, with an auto, there is no clutch, you have a fluid flywheel with a torque convertor so the drive train was connected via the fluid flywheel which would slip when the car was stationary in drive because there was no clutch. Thats just how they were designed to do, whereas a manual you had to press the clutch down to disconnect the drive train to prevent the engine from stalling. So with an automatic, if it stalls, there has to be a reason for it stalling as the oil in the flywheel / torque convertor forms the clutch and is only too willing to slip when the drive train is prevented from turning due the brakes for example being applied and thus preventing the wheels from being driven.

The torque converter does impart some load on the engine. That's why when you put it into drive (or reverse) the engine idle drops. On those vintage cars, especially when the engine was cold, that was enough to stall them sometimes. 

[mnementh]

Here's a little known fact.....

American cars with a manual shift have a clutch interlock. The starter will not crank unless the clutch pedal is fully depressed, even with the transmission in neutral.

Now think about why that is arranged like that. The first right answer gets a cookie. 

I would think it is to ensure that the car cannot be started in gear and it ensures that the person, be it a mechanic or whatever has to be sitting in the car and holding clutch peddle down before cranking the engine and therefore in a position to take proper control of car should anything go wrong.?

Sort of. Americans are so ingrained with driving automatics that the average Joe Dirt would get in the car, insert key, hit the starter and never touch the clutch. Now if he has his foot on the brake (not required, not interlocked on manual shift) or has the parking brake set properly the car should not leap forward. But if it does now the lawyers are involved. The car jumped forward and hit and killed neighbors kid.   

Actually I can answer this with the reason given for the change by the manufacturer (Chrysler) direct from the engineers: Carbureted cars were very unlikely to actually start while in gear because inadequate air velocity for the carburetor to draft fuel. The advent of direct fuel injection and electronic ignition changed that. This is also why the change to smaller, gear-reduction starter motors; today's engines start reliably at a lower RPM.

mnem

[Cubdriver]

When I drove my first automatic the engine stalled at the first traffic light. It took me too many sweaty minutes to realize that you have to put it in neutral before you can start the engine again 

There must have been a problem with the engine then for it to stall. I have never known an automatic to stall its engine ever, so from that point of view they were safer.

You haven't driven many American cars from the 1970's and early 1980's, have you? Smog controls and carburetors. Stalling was all part of the fun. 

But thats just it, with an auto, there is no clutch, you have a fluid flywheel with a torque convertor so the drive train was connected via the fluid flywheel which would slip when the car was stationary in drive because there was no clutch. Thats just how they were designed to do, whereas a manual you had to press the clutch down to disconnect the drive train to prevent the engine from stalling. So with an automatic, if it stalls, there has to be a reason for it stalling as the oil in the flywheel / torque convertor forms the clutch and is only too willing to slip when the drive train is prevented from turning due the brakes for example being applied and thus preventing the wheels from being driven.

The torque converter does impart some load on the engine. That's why when you put it into drive (or reverse) the engine idle drops. On those vintage cars, especially when the engine was cold, that was enough to stall them sometimes.

My aunt bought an '81 Pontiac LeMans, new.  It had a 231 Buick V-6 with an 'electronic' carburetor (GM used these in the very early 80s between old school carburetors like what was in my ’79 Firebird and was pretty much rock solid, and throttle body fuel injection which followed and was much better).  I could never get it to run right.  It idled so fast that if you released the brake in drive on a level surface, it would get up to 15 mph or more, and into second gear.  On the other hand, if you wanted to pull away from a stop quickly, more often than not it would stumble and sputter and think about it before eventually going, or, occasionally, stalling at about mid intersection.  I hated that damned POS - about the only redeeming quality it had was being rear wheel drive.

-Pat

[med6753]

Here's a little known fact.....

American cars with a manual shift have a clutch interlock. The starter will not crank unless the clutch pedal is fully depressed, even with the transmission in neutral.

Now think about why that is arranged like that. The first right answer gets a cookie. 

I would think it is to ensure that the car cannot be started in gear and it ensures that the person, be it a mechanic or whatever has to be sitting in the car and holding clutch peddle down before cranking the engine and therefore in a position to take proper control of car should anything go wrong.?

Sort of. Americans are so ingrained with driving automatics that the average Joe Dirt would get in the car, insert key, hit the starter and never touch the clutch. Now if he has his foot on the brake (not required, not interlocked on manual shift) or has the parking brake set properly the car should not leap forward. But if it does now the lawyers are involved. The car jumped forward and hit and killed neighbors kid.   

Actually I can answer this with the reason given for the change by the manufacturer (Chrysler) direct from the engineers: Carbureted cars were very unlikely to actually start while in gear because inadequate air velocity for the carburetor to draft fuel. The advent of direct fuel injection and electronic ignition changed that. This is also why the change to smaller, gear-reduction starter motors; today's engines start reliably at a lower RPM.

mnem

You really believe that? What rock have you been living under?  In my distant past I've seen carbureted cars bump started more than once. I even had to do it myself several times when the clutch linkage broke and the clutch was always engaged. Hit key, leap forward, and boom, she's running and moving forward.

[mnementh]

When I drove my first automatic the engine stalled at the first traffic light. It took me too many sweaty minutes to realize that you have to put it in neutral before you can start the engine again 

My first car tended to drop into neutral - just after entering a junction and starting to pull away. Eeeek!

The engine oil became dirty, and the same oil was used for the automatic gearbox. Dirt confused the hydraulic logic

To my knowledge, no manufacturer in the history of ever has done this. ever.

Motor oil needs to be changed every 3K miles, and is not safe to use in the gearbox as clutch packs and planetary gears need higher shear-rated oil, plus anti-foaming agents which will burn the rings in an engine. Literally two different families of lubricant. This is why ATF is good for 60-120K miles.

4-stroke motorcycles, I've seen this; but they're just a wet-sump clutch. Different animal altogether.

mnem
 

[nfmax]

Here's a little known fact.....

American cars with a manual shift have a clutch interlock. The starter will not crank unless the clutch pedal is fully depressed, even with the transmission in neutral.

Now think about why that is arranged like that. The first right answer gets a cookie. 

Once I got stuck in the middle of a large junction, half way through turning right, when the engine died on me (fuel pump failure). I put it in 1st gear, and cranked myself out of harms way on the starter motor. Those were the days...

[BU508A]

For the Germans here:

The first American on Mars!



 

Edit:
Explanation

[mnementh]

Here's a little known fact.....

American cars with a manual shift have a clutch interlock. The starter will not crank unless the clutch pedal is fully depressed, even with the transmission in neutral.

Now think about why that is arranged like that. The first right answer gets a cookie. 

I would think it is to ensure that the car cannot be started in gear and it ensures that the person, be it a mechanic or whatever has to be sitting in the car and holding clutch peddle down before cranking the engine and therefore in a position to take proper control of car should anything go wrong.?

Sort of. Americans are so ingrained with driving automatics that the average Joe Dirt would get in the car, insert key, hit the starter and never touch the clutch. Now if he has his foot on the brake (not required, not interlocked on manual shift) or has the parking brake set properly the car should not leap forward. But if it does now the lawyers are involved. The car jumped forward and hit and killed neighbors kid.   

Actually I can answer this with the reason given for the change by the manufacturer (Chrysler) direct from the engineers: Carbureted cars were very unlikely to actually start while in gear because inadequate air velocity for the carburetor to draft fuel. The advent of direct fuel injection and electronic ignition changed that. This is also why the change to smaller, gear-reduction starter motors; today's engines start reliably at a lower RPM.

mnem

You really believe that? What rock have you been living under?  In my distant past I've seen carbureted cars bump started more than once. I even had to do it myself several times when the clutch linkage broke and the clutch was always engaged. Hit key, leap forward, and boom, she's running and moving forward.

Yeah, I do. Up to that point it wasn't a problem. Not that it couldn't happen; just that it didn't happen enough times to be a liability. That is the reason they had to address it; the fact it became likely that it would start, even in gear.

Good lord dude; not everything is a conspiracy with the fucking lawyers.  Sometimes things just don't change because the problem never came up before.

And why would they lie to their own company mechanics about something like this...?

mnem
 

[Robert763]

Random purchase. Decided to treat myself to another NanoVNA, this time a genuine one from Mirfield Electronics here who are an official reseller. No hooky ones any more 

Very good company. Pay via PayPal checkout. Arrived next day RM 1st class 

https://www.mirfield-electronics.co.uk/

Has it got a CE mark on it? Does the power supply fit a 13A socket without an adaptor?

Nope. No power supply. Just usb cable. No CE mark.

It’s still shit from China. Just genuine shit from China rather than cloned shit from China 

Edit: also it doesn’t require CE marking now as of 1st jan. UKCA. More fun!

It should still have CE or UKCA compliance (and marking). Mirfield are responsble for that.

[Cubdriver]

Here's a little known fact.....

American cars with a manual shift have a clutch interlock. The starter will not crank unless the clutch pedal is fully depressed, even with the transmission in neutral.

Now think about why that is arranged like that. The first right answer gets a cookie. 

I would think it is to ensure that the car cannot be started in gear and it ensures that the person, be it a mechanic or whatever has to be sitting in the car and holding clutch peddle down before cranking the engine and therefore in a position to take proper control of car should anything go wrong.?

Sort of. Americans are so ingrained with driving automatics that the average Joe Dirt would get in the car, insert key, hit the starter and never touch the clutch. Now if he has his foot on the brake (not required, not interlocked on manual shift) or has the parking brake set properly the car should not leap forward. But if it does now the lawyers are involved. The car jumped forward and hit and killed neighbors kid.   

Actually I can answer this with the reason given for the change by the manufacturer (Chrysler) direct from the engineers: Carbureted cars were very unlikely to actually start while in gear because inadequate air velocity for the carburetor to draft fuel. The advent of direct fuel injection and electronic ignition changed that. This is also why the change to smaller, gear-reduction starter motors; today's engines start reliably at a lower RPM.

mnem

Huh?  Chryslers have used geared starters since the early 70s at least (that distinctive cyclic whine they made was unmistakable) and I know GM cars have had clutch interlocks since the late 60s at latest.

-Pat

[nixiefreqq]

Here's a little known fact.....

American cars with a manual shift have a clutch interlock. The starter will not crank unless the clutch pedal is fully depressed, even with the transmission in neutral.

Now think about why that is arranged like that. The first right answer gets a cookie. 

it was 1982.  had just changed the alternator bracket on the ex's plymouth horizon.  (had 3 sets crack to failure in 5 years.  used to make a squeal like a stuck pig).  told the ex to start er up to see if the belt was correctly adjusted.    at the very last second i thought better of standing in front right between the bumper and the short block wall that edged the carport.   sure as shit she had it in first and that fine automobile lurched and knocked the top row of blocks off the wall.

would have caught me right in the knees.  but it taught me to never stand in front of a car again (unless the keys were in my pocket)

[Robert763]

When I drove my first automatic the engine stalled at the first traffic light. It took me too many sweaty minutes to realize that you have to put it in neutral before you can start the engine again 

My first car tended to drop into neutral - just after entering a junction and starting to pull away. Eeeek!

The engine oil became dirty, and the same oil was used for the automatic gearbox. Dirt confused the hydraulic logic

To my knowledge, no manufacturer in the history of ever has done this. ever.

Motor oil needs to be changed every 3K miles, and is not safe to use in the gearbox as clutch packs and planetary gears need higher shear-rated oil, plus anti-foaming agents which will burn the rings in an engine. Literally two different families of lubricant. This is why ATF is good for 60-120K miles.

4-stroke motorcycles, I've seen this; but they're just a wet-sump clutch. Different animal altogether.

mnem
 

Well you are not well informed. Austin / British Leyland did it on the Mini and other cars with the 1275cc engine.
The manual classic Mini gearbox also shares the engine oil.

[mnementh]

Chrysler starters were still quite large motors, and still turned at higher output RPM than their modern counterparts. It may be that GM ran into this problem sooner because of the Q-jet carburetors they used. 

I'm just passing on what they told us in factory training at Chrysler back in the day. Jeebus. 

mnem
Everything's a fucking courtroom trial.

[mnementh]

When I drove my first automatic the engine stalled at the first traffic light. It took me too many sweaty minutes to realize that you have to put it in neutral before you can start the engine again 

My first car tended to drop into neutral - just after entering a junction and starting to pull away. Eeeek!

The engine oil became dirty, and the same oil was used for the automatic gearbox. Dirt confused the hydraulic logic

To my knowledge, no manufacturer in the history of ever has done this. ever.

Motor oil needs to be changed every 3K miles, and is not safe to use in the gearbox as clutch packs and planetary gears need higher shear-rated oil, plus anti-foaming agents which will burn the rings in an engine. Literally two different families of lubricant. This is why ATF is good for 60-120K miles.

4-stroke motorcycles, I've seen this; but they're just a wet-sump clutch. Different animal altogether.

mnem
 

Well you are not well informed. Austin / British Leyland did it on the Mini and other cars with the 1275cc engine. The manual classic Mini gearbox also shares the engine oil.

Yeah... that's not a car. It's a motorcycle with a roof stapled on.  And did they even have an automatic transmission on them...?

Also... shite engineering. Full stop.

mnem
 

[med6753]

Here's a little known fact.....

American cars with a manual shift have a clutch interlock. The starter will not crank unless the clutch pedal is fully depressed, even with the transmission in neutral.

Now think about why that is arranged like that. The first right answer gets a cookie. 

I would think it is to ensure that the car cannot be started in gear and it ensures that the person, be it a mechanic or whatever has to be sitting in the car and holding clutch peddle down before cranking the engine and therefore in a position to take proper control of car should anything go wrong.?

Sort of. Americans are so ingrained with driving automatics that the average Joe Dirt would get in the car, insert key, hit the starter and never touch the clutch. Now if he has his foot on the brake (not required, not interlocked on manual shift) or has the parking brake set properly the car should not leap forward. But if it does now the lawyers are involved. The car jumped forward and hit and killed neighbors kid.   

Actually I can answer this with the reason given for the change by the manufacturer (Chrysler) direct from the engineers: Carbureted cars were very unlikely to actually start while in gear because inadequate air velocity for the carburetor to draft fuel. The advent of direct fuel injection and electronic ignition changed that. This is also why the change to smaller, gear-reduction starter motors; today's engines start reliably at a lower RPM.

mnem

You really believe that? What rock have you been living under?  In my distant past I've seen carbureted cars bump started more than once. I even had to do it myself several times when the clutch linkage broke and the clutch was always engaged. Hit key, leap forward, and boom, she's running and moving forward.

Yeah, I do. Up to that point it wasn't a problem. Not that it couldn't happen; just that it didn't happen enough times to be a liability. That is the reason they had to address it; the fact it became likely that it would start, even in gear.

Good lord dude; not everything is a conspiracy with the fucking lawyers.  Sometimes things just don't change because the problem never came up before.

And why would they lie to their own company mechanics about something like this...?

mnem
 

The "liability" didn't become a liability until some smart lawyer smelled money.   

[med6753]

This makes me sad.

My cable company was offering a special discount so I decided to get TV service again. Prior to today all I had was internet. And that offer also bumps my downloads from 60M to 200M.

So today the cable tech shows up to install the TV box. He sees all my TE. Do you know he had NO CLUE as to what any of the equipment was? I was dumbfounded. But he did have his portable SA to determine adequate signal levels. But he was so narrow minded probably by his training so that's all he knew. Unbelievable.

Apparently the only requirement to be a cable tech is to be breathing.     

[PA0PBZ]

Apparently the only requirement to be a cable tech is to be breathing. 

Did he install the box and is it all working? That's all you need 

[med6753]

Apparently the only requirement to be a cable tech is to be breathing. 

Did he install the box and is it all working? That's all you need 

Yep, the TV is working. But my internet speed is still 60. He said it would "take a while" until I saw the increase. Not sure how long "take a while" is. I figure if I don't see it by tomorrow morning I'll get online with them for a 

[mnementh]

Actually I can answer this with the reason given for the change by the manufacturer (Chrysler) direct from the engineers: Carbureted cars were very unlikely to actually start while in gear because inadequate air velocity for the carburetor to draft fuel. The advent of direct fuel injection and electronic ignition changed that. This is also why the change to smaller, gear-reduction starter motors; today's engines start reliably at a lower RPM.

mnem

You really believe that? What rock have you been living under?  In my distant past I've seen carbureted cars bump started more than once. I even had to do it myself several times when the clutch linkage broke and the clutch was always engaged. Hit key, leap forward, and boom, she's running and moving forward.

Yeah, I do. Up to that point it wasn't a problem. Not that it couldn't happen; just that it didn't happen enough times to be a liability. That is the reason they had to address it; the fact it became likely that it would start, even in gear.

Good lord dude; not everything is a conspiracy with the fucking lawyers.  Sometimes things just don't change because the problem never came up before.

And why would they lie to their own company mechanics about something like this...?

mnem
 

The "liability" didn't become a liability until some smart lawyer smelled money.   

As with most things in automotive design... it probably didn't become a liability until it happened enough times to point to a pattern of negligence. That is when the lawyers smell money. In many cases, it is the company's own lawyers who smell it first; that is their job after all. 

We're also talking aboot two different devices here; clutch interlock vs shifter/trans interlock. The latter has been common (tho evidently not mandated) since prewar times. Clutch interlock didn't become a required (and often bypassed by morons) safety inspection item until well into the time I was working at the Dodge garage.

Again; I cannot think of a single good reason why they would lie to their own mechanics aboot the actual reason for the change.

mnem
 

[mnementh]

Apparently the only requirement to be a cable tech is to be breathing. 

Did he install the box and is it all working? That's all you need 

Yep, the TV is working. But my internet speed is still 60. He said it would "take a while" until I saw the increase. Not sure how long "take a while" is. I figure if I don't see it by tomorrow morning I'll get online with them for a 

you may need to unplug the MODEM for 20-60 minutes; this will force the thing to do whatever "Initial start" sequence it does to provision itself. Just a quick on/off doesn't do this.

Had to do this so many times back when we had Slime Warner for internet; it became their mantra, I think. 

mnem
 

[Robert763]

When I drove my first automatic the engine stalled at the first traffic light. It took me too many sweaty minutes to realize that you have to put it in neutral before you can start the engine again 

My first car tended to drop into neutral - just after entering a junction and starting to pull away. Eeeek!

The engine oil became dirty, and the same oil was used for the automatic gearbox. Dirt confused the hydraulic logic

To my knowledge, no manufacturer in the history of ever has done this. ever.

Motor oil needs to be changed every 3K miles, and is not safe to use in the gearbox as clutch packs and planetary gears need higher shear-rated oil, plus anti-foaming agents which will burn the rings in an engine. Literally two different families of lubricant. This is why ATF is good for 60-120K miles.

4-stroke motorcycles, I've seen this; but they're just a wet-sump clutch. Different animal altogether.

mnem
 

Well you are not well informed. Austin / British Leyland did it on the Mini and other cars with the 1275cc engine. The manual classic Mini gearbox also shares the engine oil.

Yeah... that's not a car. It's a motorcycle with a roof stapled on.  And did they even have an automatic transmission on them...?

Also... shite engineering. Full stop.

mnem
 

Well I would not have suggested it as an example of an automatic sharing engine oil if they didn't make it with an automatic. 

The Mini was only in producton for 40 years so obviously a complete flop