Test Equipment Anonymous (TEA) group therapy thread

[Vince]

Spec just call it whatever you want.... I mean people call their modern fancy SUV a "car", even though it's a small truck. So calling a Sedan a Coupé is a minor adjustment in comparison...in my view.

Actually, most modern SUV's are cars, not trucks. A truck has a separated chassis with the cabin mounted on top, a car has the chassis integrated into the body.
McBryce.

So that's saying a car can't have a chassis or else it's a truck ?!

Sorry but that's ridiculous and just not true at all my dear !!! 

A car has never been defined by the lack of chassis !

Actually the first cars a 100 years ago ALL had a chassis !  Most auto makers would just sell you a bare chassis, then it was up to you to take your chassis  to a dedicated coach builder and ask him to make a body of your liking and stick it to that chassis ! 

In more recent times the Citroen CX and Citroen 2CV had a chassis, are these trucks ?

Every British or Italian sports car under the sun had a body on frame/chassis construction... even today any Lotus car is still a fiber glass body on an epoxy glued extruded aluminium chassis.
Even modern lamborghinis as well I think. Not sure about about modern Ferraris... but you get the picture !

A vehicle having a body on frame is nothing to do with being a car or a truck !
It only has to do with design choices, themselves dictated by many factors...
For low volume sports cars, body on frame is what makes most economical sense as less expensive tooling required and easier to cobble together with cheap tools in a small workshop. Just a jig some steel tubes and a welder and off you go. Plus a chassis makesq it easy to have the required stiffness that then allows you to achieve good dynamics.

Trucks have a chassis because that's cheaper and easier to achieve the required  stiffness and load bearing capability this way, that's all...

Most modern cars having a unibody construction is merely because they are all built on a budget no matter what the selling price is, and a unibody is by far what's the cheapest to manufacture for a HIGH volume car, that is all. But as soon as you look into niche/low volume cars, then unibody is out of the question because of the tooling costs, and then hand building a chassis then becomes the economically viable option. More labour but very liitle tooling costs. Sports cars being sold for a lot of money usually, it can pay for the extra labour involved no problem.  For mass produced cars labour is critical but tooling cost is not because you make millions of cars to recoup your investment, so in this case unibody is what makes financial sense.

In the USA where there are millions of pick-up trucks, for many decades, I am sure you can find many of them of all vintages, that have/had a unibody construction, because although they were trucks, they were not heavy duty enough to warrant a super stiff chassis, plus they sold enough of them to make a unibody the most sensible manufacturing option.

[McBryce]

Spec just call it whatever you want.... I mean people call their modern fancy SUV a "car", even though it's a small truck. So calling a Sedan a Coupé is a minor adjustment in comparison...in my view.

Actually, most modern SUV's are cars, not trucks. A truck has a separated chassis with the cabin mounted on top, a car has the chassis integrated into the body.
McBryce.

So that's saying a car can't have a chassis or else it's a truck ?!

Sorry but that's ridiculous and just not true at all my dear !!! 

A car has never been defined by the lack of chassis !

Actually the first cars a 100 years ago ALL had a chassis !  Most auto makers would just sell you a bare chassis, then it was up to you to take your chassis  to a dedicated coach builder and ask him to make a body of your liking and stick it to that chassis ! 

In more recent times the Citroen CX and Citroen 2CV had a chassis, are these trucks ?

Every British or Italian sports car under the sun had a body on frame/chassis construction... even today any Lotus car is still a fiber glass body on an epoxy glued extruded aluminium chassis.
Even modern lamborghinis as well I think. Not sure about about modern Ferraris... but you get the picture !

A vehicle having a body on frame is nothing to do with being a car or a truck !
It only has to do with design choices, themselves dictated by many factors...
For low volume sports cars, body on frame is what makes most economical sense as less expensive tooling required and easier to cobble together with cheap tools in a small workshop. Just a jig some steel tubes and a welder and off you go. Plus a chassis makesq it easy to have the required stiffness that then allows you to achieve good dynamics.

Trucks have a chassis because that's cheaper and easier to achieve the required  stiffness and load bearing capability this way, that's all...

Most modern cars having a unibody construction is merely because they are all built on a budget no matter what the selling price is, and a unibody is by far what's the cheapest to manufacture for a HIGH volume car, that is all. But as soon as you look into niche/low volume cars, then unibody is out of the question because of the tooling costs, and then hand building a chassis then becomes the economically viable option. More labour but very liitle tooling costs. Sports cars being sold for a lot of money usually, it can pay for the extra labour involved no problem.  For mass produced cars labour is critical but tooling cost is not because you make millions of cars to recoup your investment, so in this case unibody is what makes financial sense.

In the USA where there are millions of pick-up trucks, for many decades, I am sure you can find many of them of all vintages, that have/had a unibody construction, because although they were trucks, they were not heavy duty enough to warrant a super stiff chassis, plus they sold enough of them to make a unibody the most sensible manufacturing option.

No, that's not what I said at all. Of course a car has a chassis, but it is welded together with the body frame not a separate part, ie: Chassis and frame are one part. The body panels are then welded, riveted or bolted to the frame. A truck on the other hand has a completely stand-alone chassis and the frame is then bolted to the chassis.

In real terms: If you can remove the body / frame and still have a chassis with suspension and an engine in place, then it's classed as a truck. This is of course only true for standard road vehicles. Many motor sport vehicles are closer to truck design than car design.

McBryce.

Edit: You are correct however, that Citroen did use the truck construction for some of there older vehicles.

[xrunner]

So that's saying a car can't have a chassis or else it's a truck ?!

Sorry but that's ridiculous and just not true at all my dear !!! 

A car has never been defined by the lack of chassis !

Go Vince!

[GreyWoolfe]

Spec just call it whatever you want.... I mean people call their modern fancy SUV a "car", even though it's a small truck. So calling a Sedan a Coupé is a minor adjustment in comparison...in my view.

Actually, most modern SUV's are cars, not trucks. A truck has a separated chassis with the cabin mounted on top, a car has the chassis integrated into the body.
McBryce.

So that's saying a car can't have a chassis or else it's a truck ?!

Sorry but that's ridiculous and just not true at all my dear !!! 

A car has never been defined by the lack of chassis !

Actually the first cars a 100 years ago ALL had a chassis !  Most auto makers would just sell you a bare chassis, then it was up to you to take your chassis  to a dedicated coach builder and ask him to make a body of your liking and stick it to that chassis ! 

In more recent times the Citroen CX and Citroen 2CV had a chassis, are these trucks ?

Every British or Italian sports car under the sun had a body on frame/chassis construction... even today any Lotus car is still a fiber glass body on an epoxy glued extruded aluminium chassis.
Even modern lamborghinis as well I think. Not sure about about modern Ferraris... but you get the picture !

A vehicle having a body on frame is nothing to do with being a car or a truck !
It only has to do with design choices, themselves dictated by many factors...
For low volume sports cars, body on frame is what makes most economical sense as less expensive tooling required and easier to cobble together with cheap tools in a small workshop. Just a jig some steel tubes and a welder and off you go. Plus a chassis makesq it easy to have the required stiffness that then allows you to achieve good dynamics.

Trucks have a chassis because that's cheaper and easier to achieve the required  stiffness and load bearing capability this way, that's all...

Most modern cars having a unibody construction is merely because they are all built on a budget no matter what the selling price is, and a unibody is by far what's the cheapest to manufacture for a HIGH volume car, that is all. But as soon as you look into niche/low volume cars, then unibody is out of the question because of the tooling costs, and then hand building a chassis then becomes the economically viable option. More labour but very liitle tooling costs. Sports cars being sold for a lot of money usually, it can pay for the extra labour involved no problem.  For mass produced cars labour is critical but tooling cost is not because you make millions of cars to recoup your investment, so in this case unibody is what makes financial sense.

In the USA where there are millions of pick-up trucks, for many decades, I am sure you can find many of them of all vintages, that have/had a unibody construction, because although they were trucks, they were not heavy duty enough to warrant a super stiff chassis, plus they sold enough of them to make a unibody the most sensible manufacturing option.

I have always been of the mind that an SUV was built on a truck chassis with rear wheel drive as that is what they originally were.  Ford Explorers were originally built on the Ranger chassis and the Expedition on the F150 chassis.  If there is no chassis and no rear wheel drive, it is not an SUV.  What people are now calling SUVs or crossovers are nothing more than glorified station wagons.  I am not vilifying station wagons or shooting brakes if you will.  I have owned several in the past and find them most practical.  I prefer function over form which is why I drive my retired company vehicle, a 2013 Ram Tradesman cargo van.  Mrs. GreyWoolfe is usually form over function.  That is why she will be driving the 2018 Hyundai Santa Fe Sport 2.0T we are buying from our oldest daughter to help lower her debt.  Now that is a station wagon in disguise and better for her than the Sonata we gave to the youngest daughter. 

McBryce, When I had my 1992 Ford Explorer, we always referred to it as a truck.  It may not have looked exactly like a truck but it sure drove like one.  It had oversized tires and was a 5 speed manual that had the stiffest clutch of any manual transmission vehicle I have driven.  That was quite a few vehicles ago and sometimes I still miss it.  Mrs. GreyWoolfe referred to it as the demon truck due to a minor incident that she didn't find funny but I did.

[Vince]

No, that's not what I said at all. Of course a car has a chassis, but it is welded together with the body frame not a separate part

No, a body on frame car as it's called, is just that... a body.... sitting on top of a frame. You just put a few bolts to hold it in place of course... same with a truck... if you don't put a couple bolts here and there how is the body / cabin supposed to stay on the frame/chassis when you brake and go round corners ! 
But no welding  of course... plus how would you weld a fiberglass body anyway ?! 

ie: Chassis and frame are one part.

Then it's not a body on frame anymore, it's just a unibody, what all modern mass produced cars are made of.

  A truck on the other hand has a completely stand-alone chassis and the frame is then bolted to the chassis.

Again, so does any body on frame car under the sun. CX, 2CV, a Lotus Esprit / Excel what have you.

There is nothing magical or exclusive about a body on frame.. it's just a design choice nothing more.

Here is an old promotional video of a Lotus Factory tour in 1984.



Skip to 8min30sec . You can see the chassis being built, then you add the engine to it, suspension, brakes, wheels, steering..you get what's called a "rolling chassis", basically the "car" can drive like that on the road should you want to...  then, the complete, one piece bodyshell, that would be the cabin for a big truck, is lowered onto that rolling chassis. It's only held in place by a handful of bolts here and there. I have the workshop manuals for the Lotus Esprit, can post exploded views if you want.

The body is just like the cabin on a truck, just laying on top of a rolling chassis, plays next to zero structural role. It's just there for comfort/looks/practicality  , so to speak...

[Trymon]

Could somebody help me with this addiction? With all the ideas floating around in my head I see me falling into a rabbit hole that costs more and more money.

Nope, I have no advice to give except earn more money.

Soon you'll be like me, buying gear to calibrate your gear to calibrate the gear you actually want to use. I'm currently at least 4 layers deep for some equipment at this point, with no indication of slowing down.....   

You'll know when you are truly in deep when you start buying stuff you don't even need just because it's cheap, or shiny, or 'just because'.... Someone^{pleaseHelpmeeeeeeee!}

Well, I'm looking already quite some time for gear to calibrate my gear.....guess there is no hope left for me.
But I realized that I'm to late at this game. A few years ago you could get so much of this older gear very cheap. Now you need to earn more and more to be able to afford it. :/

[Trymon]

Just bought a 34401A 
and i already have an SDM3065X-SC   

i hope it arrives as good as on the pictures.

Hey do you have to copy my behavior?
Just recently bought a 3065X without CS (you could see it in a Siglent FB Group you should be very familiar with ) and just two weeks after a 34401A.
I'm curious if your devices also just don't like to agree like min. Always 1 or 2 counts difference, just cause. But I've found the DMM sweet spot for both of them. At room temperature between 24C and 24.5C they like to agree on the DCV readings.
For other readings I didn't test if they have the same sweet spot.

[McBryce]

No, that's not what I said at all. Of course a car has a chassis, but it is welded together with the body frame not a separate part

No, a body on frame car as it's called, is just that... a body.... sitting on top of a frame. You just put a few bolts to hold it in place of course... same with a truck... if you don't put a couple bolts here and there how is the body / cabin supposed to stay on the frame/chassis when you brake and go round corners ! 
But no welding  of course... plus how would you weld a fiberglass body anyway ?! 

ie: Chassis and frame are one part.

Then it's not a body on frame anymore, it's just a unibody, what all modern mass produced cars are made of.

  A truck on the other hand has a completely stand-alone chassis and the frame is then bolted to the chassis.

Again, so does any body on frame car under the sun. CX, 2CV, a Lotus Esprit / Excel what have you.

There is nothing magical or exclusive about a body on frame.. it's just a design choice nothing more.

Here is an old promotional video of a Lotus Factory tour in 1984.



Skip to 8min30sec . You can see the chassis being built, then you add the engine to it, suspension, brakes, wheels, steering..you get what's called a "rolling chassis", basically the "car" can drive like that on the road should you want to...  then, the complete, one piece bodyshell, that would be the cabin for a big truck, is lowered onto that rolling chassis. It's only held in place by a handful of bolts here and there. I have the workshop manuals for the Lotus Esprit, can post exploded views if you want.

The body is just like the cabin on a truck, just laying on top of a rolling chassis, plays next to zero structural role. It's just there for comfort/looks/practicality  , so to speak...

You've obviously been working in car design and the automotive industry a lot longer than I have, to have such a good knowledge of the terms used within the industry. We must meet up some time so that I can learn more from you. 

McBryce.

[vk6zgo]

Spec just call it whatever you want.... I mean people call their modern fancy SUV a "car", even though it's a small truck. So calling a Sedan a Coupé is a minor adjustment in comparison...in my view.

Actually, most modern SUV's are cars, not trucks. A truck has a separated chassis with the cabin mounted on top, a car has the chassis integrated into the body.
McBryce.

So that's saying a car can't have a chassis or else it's a truck ?!

Sorry but that's ridiculous and just not true at all my dear !!! 

A car has never been defined by the lack of chassis !

Actually the first cars a 100 years ago ALL had a chassis !  Most auto makers would just sell you a bare chassis, then it was up to you to take your chassis  to a dedicated coach builder and ask him to make a body of your liking and stick it to that chassis ! 

In more recent times the Citroen CX and Citroen 2CV had a chassis, are these trucks ?

Every British or Italian sports car under the sun had a body on frame/chassis construction... even today any Lotus car is still a fiber glass body on an epoxy glued extruded aluminium chassis.
Even modern lamborghinis as well I think. Not sure about about modern Ferraris... but you get the picture !

A vehicle having a body on frame is nothing to do with being a car or a truck !
It only has to do with design choices, themselves dictated by many factors...
For low volume sports cars, body on frame is what makes most economical sense as less expensive tooling required and easier to cobble together with cheap tools in a small workshop. Just a jig some steel tubes and a welder and off you go. Plus a chassis makesq it easy to have the required stiffness that then allows you to achieve good dynamics.

Trucks have a chassis because that's cheaper and easier to achieve the required  stiffness and load bearing capability this way, that's all...

Most modern cars having a unibody construction is merely because they are all built on a budget no matter what the selling price is, and a unibody is by far what's the cheapest to manufacture for a HIGH volume car, that is all. But as soon as you look into niche/low volume cars, then unibody is out of the question because of the tooling costs, and then hand building a chassis then becomes the economically viable option. More labour but very liitle tooling costs. Sports cars being sold for a lot of money usually, it can pay for the extra labour involved no problem.  For mass produced cars labour is critical but tooling cost is not because you make millions of cars to recoup your investment, so in this case unibody is what makes financial sense.

In the USA where there are millions of pick-up trucks, for many decades, I am sure you can find many of them of all vintages, that have/had a unibody construction, because although they were trucks, they were not heavy duty enough to warrant a super stiff chassis, plus they sold enough of them to make a unibody the most sensible manufacturing option.

No, that's not what I said at all. Of course a car has a chassis, but it is welded together with the body frame not a separate part, ie: Chassis and frame are one part. The body panels are then welded, riveted or bolted to the frame. A truck on the other hand has a completely stand-alone chassis and the frame is then bolted to the chassis.

In real terms: If you can remove the body / frame and still have a chassis with suspension and an engine in place, then it's classed as a truck. This is of course only true for standard road vehicles. Many motor sport vehicles are closer to truck design than car design.

McBryce.

Edit: You are correct however, that Citroen did use the truck construction for some of there older vehicles.

Before the late 1940s, British cars were all built with a driveable chassis which was then fitted with a body.
Morris Minors, to the best of my knowledge, were the first mainstream Brit cars with unibody construction.

Fully Australian made cars from the late '40s were unitary construction, including "Utes" (derived from "utility truck").

The Oz market, of course, assembled a fair number of CKD chassis type cars from UK & USA, etc, which sold in competition with the local product, as well as some large "Utes" (US type "Pickups", all with chassis)
The classic Aussie "ute" was a car based "coupe utility", with unitary construction (although "beefed up a bit).

There were quite a few unitary bodied imports as well, a popular choice being the VW "Beetle".

Unitary bodies were not quite as "unitary" as they sound-----model changes were often made using the same basic "floor pan", with changed bodywork added.

Even "custom" designed cars like small production sports cars, or beach buggies did not always need a chassis, but were grafted onto an existing floor pan----for sports cars, often a Holden or Ford Zephyr or Falcon, & for beach buggies, a VW.

[tonyalbus]

Just bought a 34401A 
and i already have an SDM3065X-SC   

i hope it arrives as good as on the pictures.

Hey do you have to copy my behavior?
Just recently bought a 3065X without CS (you could see it in a Siglent FB Group you should be very familiar with ) and just two weeks after a 34401A.
I'm curious if your devices also just don't like to agree like min. Always 1 or 2 counts difference, just cause. But I've found the DMM sweet spot for both of them. At room temperature between 24C and 24.5C they like to agree on the DCV readings.
For other readings I didn't test if they have the same sweet spot.

When it has arrived i will show het also in taht group.... i so hope it arrives good...that allways the thing..

[Trymon]

When it has arrived i will show het also in taht group.... i so hope it arrives good...that allways the thing..

Mine came the long distance from Japan without any issues. But it had good packaging and I was more than happy, that Customs didn't show any interest into it and the value.
But I can't imagine where it was used before.
Had to use a lot of Isopropanol and paper towels to get a clean, non sticky, case.
Also the PCB needed some cleaning at a few spots as it was covered in dust.

[mnementh]

On the TinkerDwagon's Bench today:   
   If I can't get the BMS to charge, I'll probably have to remove it and solder a JST/XH pigtail on the cell cluster so I can balance charge with the Reaktor.

Normally this kind of dickery with individual cells is a fool's errand; one is better off rebuilding the pack with known-good or new matched cells. But given the model, this pack is probably 3-5 years old; so it is possible I'll get lucky.

   Ugggh. BMS is totes being a whiny little bitch. 

Refuses to start/turn on to charge, so balance charging the pack on the Reaktor. Safety fuse tests good, each voltage monitor leg tests the same resistance FWD/REV EXCEPT cell 1; it measures approx 630KΩ/10MΩ where the others measure ~5MΩ/10MΩ. This may or may not be a bad thing; cell 1 is where the BMS usually draws power for the supervisor chip.

It is entirely possible the pack sat unused long enough for this miniscule drain to have drawn cell 1 down to the point where the BMS shut down due to imbalance; only time will tell.

mnem
 

Exactly this happens in older Makita cordless tools and their smart chargers  would reject a well drained and forgotten pack after 3 attempts to charge it. 
We learnt to connect them to another source to get that one cell up some so the pack would be accepted and go on to charge. 
Really pissed off our eldest son Larry Major enough to use only Milwaukee tools now.

Well, there's a lot more to it than that. The BMS can only correct so much imbalance in any single cell during charging; it balances at typically 50-150mA rate/cell at most. That is likely the cause of the multiple charge attempts then  ppppbbbppppptttttttt! as it shuts down to prevent overcharging the other cells in the pack. The trick we're doing is obviously not something they can expect any end-user to attempt, with all the risk of personal injury, etc involved in directly handling any high-current Li-xx power source.

Also, more recent generations of BMS work differently; the newer supervisor ICs have quiescent draw in the picoamp range, and some of the designs supposedly can do a "refresh" cycle which I expect is just a balance discharge before charging. These new designs have their own constellation of new considerations however.

Added to the mix is the very expensive nature of these battery-powered tool ecologies; this encourages things like digital handshaking with ESNs in every pack to ensure you aren't putting some cheap Chinesium POS pack in your drill and charger and then blaming the tool manufacturer when it blows up said drill or charger.

mnem
 

[mnementh]

Could somebody help me with this addiction? With all the ideas floating around in my head I see me falling into a rabbit hole that costs more and more money.

I think that the "help" that is on offer here may not be be in the best interests of your checking account balance.

This weekend I was hiking with the family and my phone pings. I check it and it's results from a saved search for "Fluke" on craigslist.org. Someone is selling a Fluke 77 with test leads for USD30 ( https://seattle.craigslist.org/est/ele/d/kirkland-fluke-77-multimeter/7398312523.html ). My wife recognized my expression and looked at the screen. "No way!" she said.

"What?" I asked with mock surprise "I'm just looking..."

"You are like a heroin addict looking at different flavors of heroin."

To which the correct diversion should have been "I wasn't aware that heroin came in different flavours, and I wonder how, dear wife, you are so knowledgeable on the subject. Is there something you need to tell me?". Remember, if you want to keep your TEA habit flourishing you occasional have to put SWMBO on the back foot. 

That is bad advice. Never engage a woman in direct back and forth of clever or witty remarks or putting them "on the back foot". Even if you win and achieve the high ground in the end you will lose. Women's egos do not allow them to be beaten at the games that they always play. They will extract revenge when you least expect it. It's part of their DNA. It's much better to let them have their say, acknowledge that they are always right, let their ego be stroked, and let it go. Or make them THINK that. Be more subtle in your activities and hopefully keep it under their radar. Just don't get caught or there will be hell to pay. Yes, this is hard to do when UPS, FedEx, Hermes, or whatever shows up everyday with packages. 

Sage advice, Papa Smurf.

As my grandfather tried to teach me young, but I learned only very late in life after my own string of batshit-crazy redheads... and blondes... and brunettes... "Whenever you talk with a woman... everything you say should first pass this test: 'Would you rather be right, or would you rather be happy...?' "

After 20 years with my wife, and still tail over wings in love with her, happy wins out every time.

mnem

[mnementh]

Spec just call it whatever you want.... I mean people call their modern fancy SUV a "car", even though it's a small truck. So calling a Sedan a Coupé is a minor adjustment in comparison...in my view.

Actually, most modern SUV's are cars, not trucks. A truck has a separated chassis with the cabin mounted on top, a car has the chassis integrated into the body. As most SUV's are cars that look like they are trucks, the industry came up with the word "cross-over" to describe them (and to confuse everyone with yet another new half defined term).

McBryce.

Ehhhh... it's more complicated than that. Full-size vans are classified as a truck; yet very few are now manufactured as body-on-frame. Most have been unibody since the 70s.

But yes, most SUVs sold are of the "compact" variety, which are really just a overinflated passenger car. Our Rav4 is a prime example; it is little more than a pregnant Camry. This is VERY obvious when you see them side x side on the dealer's lot as we did.

And "crossover" is 110% marketing wank for "station wagon".

mnem
It's too bad AMC didn't survive another 10 years. The Eagle would have save the company.

[mnementh]

Just have the packages delivered to one of those drop off shops or a locker somewhere. Then you can slip the goodies in the house while she is out at the hairdressers or something 

You lot sound like you're all from some 1950's relation comedy. Wife and I have our own money, and when necessary things are paid for, the rest is play money. I don't ask her why, she does not ask me why. I knew the median age is somewhat elevated, but this is ridicolous.

Yeah, same here. I actually married an enabler; half the new stuff on my bench is Birthday, Father' Day, Anniversary, etc presents from her. 

The rest of the stuff... well, we have a understanding. I don't say anything aboot  her purse, manicure and iTunes habits, she doesn't say anything aboot my thrifting/FleaBay/Kijiji/CL for gadgets and TEA to tinker on habit.


mnem
Honestly, I'm just thankful she's not one of those "Shoes...!!!" women.

[Robert763]

One thing we can say wth certanty on the automotive nomenclature is that it is constantly evolving. Also there are differences between engineering and marketing. Also there are differences between countries and eras.
I would not say that any of the definitions proffered here are always right or always wrong depending on context.
The wife sends me for  zucchini and I buy courgette.

[mnementh]

Why not eggplant...? 

mnem

[Robert763]

Why not eggplant...? 

mnem

Because it's not the same thing 

[tggzzz]

For those that prefer electronics to boxes on wheels, here's the latest acquisition - no thanks to ParcelFarce.

I know the Sinclair/Thurlby SC110A is my Nth 'scope, but it won't take up much room - see the multimeter for comparison

It needs tuning, and the battery compartment is missing, but it will do.



The screen is 3cm*2.5cm.

[Neper]

One thing we can say wth certanty on the automotive nomenclature is that it is constantly evolving. Also there are differences between engineering and marketing. Also there are differences between countries and eras.

...and aparently identical designations can mean quite different things in some languages. A station wagon in German is a Kombi whereas a combi de police is a VW bus driven by the police in the French-speaking part of Belgium.

Different Geman car makers had different designations for their station wagons, e.g. Caravan by Opel, Variant by Volkswagen or Turnier by Ford. Hence, an Opel Rekord was the normal sedan and the Rekord Caravan the five-door version. Now, Opel call their station wagons Sports Tourer which is neither German nor English. 

For German speakers, the Coupé that has been discussed here used to be a two-door version with a slightly lower roof, of a Limousine, the usual two or four-door sedan or saloon. 

And "crossover" is 110% marketing wank for "station wagon".

Here in Europe, a crossover is a small SUV, e.g. the Opel/Vauxhall Mokka (aka as the Buick Encore or Chevrolet Trax). Higher but shorter than a station wagon and far less over-motorised.

[Neomys Sapiens]

Got the mini 212 pulled apart again. It appears that the issue is the wiring to the socket of the CRT. As you can see it's a tight mess in there. I can tap on the neck of the CRT and make the trace do some dancing. I had already touched up the soldering of the wiring going up to the A2 board prior but apparently that didn't help. So I have to pull the socket off the CRT and check the connections. With the scope pulled apart as shown it doesn't fail. But as soon as you cram everything back together it goes nuts.   

I hate it when they do that. Seriously, one of the most annoying failure modes.
There are two tools that can help.
- that little testing hammer (rubber disk on a isolating stick)
- an isolated wire hook and probe

..and luck.

[AVGresponding]

On the TinkerDwagon's Bench today:   
   If I can't get the BMS to charge, I'll probably have to remove it and solder a JST/XH pigtail on the cell cluster so I can balance charge with the Reaktor.

Normally this kind of dickery with individual cells is a fool's errand; one is better off rebuilding the pack with known-good or new matched cells. But given the model, this pack is probably 3-5 years old; so it is possible I'll get lucky.

   Ugggh. BMS is totes being a whiny little bitch. 

Refuses to start/turn on to charge, so balance charging the pack on the Reaktor. Safety fuse tests good, each voltage monitor leg tests the same resistance FWD/REV EXCEPT cell 1; it measures approx 630KΩ/10MΩ where the others measure ~5MΩ/10MΩ. This may or may not be a bad thing; cell 1 is where the BMS usually draws power for the supervisor chip.

It is entirely possible the pack sat unused long enough for this miniscule drain to have drawn cell 1 down to the point where the BMS shut down due to imbalance; only time will tell.

mnem
 

Exactly this happens in older Makita cordless tools and their smart chargers  would reject a well drained and forgotten pack after 3 attempts to charge it. 
We learnt to connect them to another source to get that one cell up some so the pack would be accepted and go on to charge. 
Really pissed off our eldest son Larry Major enough to use only Milwaukee tools now.

Well, there's a lot more to it than that. The BMS can only correct so much imbalance in any single cell during charging; it balances at typically 50-150mA rate/cell at most. That is likely the cause of the multiple charge attempts then  ppppbbbppppptttttttt! as it shuts down to prevent overcharging the other cells in the pack. The trick we're doing is obviously not something they can expect any end-user to attempt, with all the risk of personal injury, etc involved in directly handling any high-current Li-xx power source.

Also, more recent generations of BMS work differently; the newer supervisor ICs have quiescent draw in the picoamp range, and some of the designs supposedly can do a "refresh" cycle which I expect is just a balance discharge before charging. These new designs have their own constellation of new considerations however.

Added to the mix is the very expensive nature of these battery-powered tool ecologies; this encourages things like digital handshaking with ESNs in every pack to ensure you aren't putting some cheap Chinesium POS pack in your drill and charger and then blaming the tool manufacturer when it blows up said drill or charger.

mnem
 

As I understand it, modern BMS circuits use MOSFET bypass shunts to limit current on the fully charged cells to allow the others to catch up.

[Vince]

As my grandfather tried to teach me young, but I learned only very late in life after my own string of batshit-crazy redheads... and blondes... and brunettes... "Whenever you talk with a woman... everything you say should first pass this test: 'Would you rather be right, or would you rather be happy...?' "

After 20 years with my wife, and still tail over wings in love with her, happy wins out every time.

mnem

If only you could treat TEA as if it were your wife, how nice a place this would be 

[mnementh]

Why not eggplant...? 

mnem

Because it's not the same thing 

And you always get what your wife tells you to...?

mnem

[Andrew_Debbie]

Here in Europe, a crossover is a small SUV, e.g. the Opel/Vauxhall Mokka (aka as the Buick Encore or Chevrolet Trax). Higher but shorter than a station wagon and far less over-motorised.

Rented the Buick one in Los Angeles.   What a terrible car.