Test Equipment Anonymous (TEA) group therapy thread

[mnementh]

It looks like rain for most of the rest of the week from tomorrow so I'm off the road until I can get a replacement and fit it/get it fitted. Pah!

In the good old days one would have driven to the next cluster of scrapyards (dunno why but we always had them in clusters) and get a replacement.

Over here we still keep them in concentration camps along with the metal recyclers, as far away from the "good neighborhoods" as possible. 

Difference is that most of them have switched to the "U-Pull-It" business model as opposed to full-service; sadly IMO, as allowing every 1D10T and his dog to crawl all over your yard results in a much greater amount of waste due to gorilla abuse, and loss of precious rare parts as collateral damage.

I recall particularly the carnage seen last time I worked on my grand-dad's old '79 F-150. So many irreplaceable (to a certain extent) rearends, driveshafts, and frame parts destroyed by monkeys with a hot-wrench or sawzall/grinder. 

mnem

[Cerebus]

It looks like rain for most of the rest of the week from tomorrow so I'm off the road until I can get a replacement and fit it/get it fitted. Pah!

In the good old days one would have driven to the next cluster of scrapyards (dunno why but we always had them in clusters) and get a replacement.

Prior to 2012 I would have done exactly that, but some bastards decided that rather than all the useful half-dozen scrappies, businesses in light industrial units and the Carnico Mint factory we used to have up Carpenters road we should have a sodding great, useless for all practical purposes. Olympic Park.

[Cerebus]

In other news: My car's wiper motor has packed up. Fault traced (thanks to a suitably rugged yellow Fluke 27 that I'm not scared to put near a circuit connected to a big lead acid battery) and unfortunately it really is a failed wiper motor, not just a 10 minute electrical fix. Looks like a combination of water ingress and  poor design of drainage points.

I had a wiper motor like that once, with the MoT due.

Once I had checked that the wording was "if fitted, windscreen wipers must work", the solution was simple. Yes, it passed

Depending on when it was, you were probably still comitting an offence under the Construction and Use Regulations:

Windscreen wipers and washers

34.—(1)  Subject to paragraphs (4) and (5), every vehicle fitted with a windscreen shall, unless the driver can obtain an adequate view to the front of the vehicle without looking through the windscreen, be fitted with one or more efficient automatic windscreen wipers capable of clearing the windscreen so that the driver has an adequate view of the road in front of both sides of the vehicle and to the front of the vehicle.

(2)  Save as provided in paragraphs (3), (4) and (5), every wheeled vehicle required by paragraph (1) to be fitted with a wiper or wipers shall also be fitted with a windscreen washer capable of cleaning, in conjunction with the windscreen wiper, the area of the windscreen swept by the wiper of mud or similar deposit.

(3)  The requirement specified in paragraph (2) does not apply in respect of—

(a) an agricultural motor vehicle (other than a vehicle first used on or after 1st June 1986 which is driven at more than 20 mph);

(b) a track-laying vehicle;

(c) a vehicle having a maximum speed not exceeding 20 mph; or

(d) a vehicle being used to provide a local service, as defined in the Transport Act 1985.

(4)  Instead of complying with paragraphs (1) and (2), a vehicle may comply with Community Directive 78/318.

(5)  Instead of complying with paragraph (1) an agricultural motor vehicle may comply with Community Directive 79/1073.

(6)  Every wiper and washer fitted in accordance with this regulation shall at all times while a vehicle is being used on a road be maintained in efficient working order and be properly adjusted.

Older regulations just required an "efficient means of clearing the windscreen so that the driver has an adequate view of the road" which I believe was once held by the courts on one occassion to be fulfilled by the driver's girlfriend standing up and wiping the windscreen manually as required. 

[mansaxel]

Firmware is a mass noun without number, like butter, or snow.

Latin has a term for this; "plurale tantum"

[tggzzz]

In other news: My car's wiper motor has packed up. Fault traced (thanks to a suitably rugged yellow Fluke 27 that I'm not scared to put near a circuit connected to a big lead acid battery) and unfortunately it really is a failed wiper motor, not just a 10 minute electrical fix. Looks like a combination of water ingress and  poor design of drainage points.

I had a wiper motor like that once, with the MoT due.

Once I had checked that the wording was "if fitted, windscreen wipers must work", the solution was simple. Yes, it passed

Depending on when it was, you were probably still comitting an offence under the Construction and Use Regulations:

Windscreen wipers and washers

34.—(1)  Subject to paragraphs (4) and (5), every vehicle fitted with a windscreen shall, unless the driver can obtain an adequate view to the front of the vehicle without looking through the windscreen, be fitted with one or more efficient automatic windscreen wipers capable of clearing the windscreen so that the driver has an adequate view of the road in front of both sides of the vehicle and to the front of the vehicle.

(2)  Save as provided in paragraphs (3), (4) and (5), every wheeled vehicle required by paragraph (1) to be fitted with a wiper or wipers shall also be fitted with a windscreen washer capable of cleaning, in conjunction with the windscreen wiper, the area of the windscreen swept by the wiper of mud or similar deposit.

(3)  The requirement specified in paragraph (2) does not apply in respect of—

(a) an agricultural motor vehicle (other than a vehicle first used on or after 1st June 1986 which is driven at more than 20 mph);

(b) a track-laying vehicle;

(c) a vehicle having a maximum speed not exceeding 20 mph; or

(d) a vehicle being used to provide a local service, as defined in the Transport Act 1985.

(4)  Instead of complying with paragraphs (1) and (2), a vehicle may comply with Community Directive 78/318.

(5)  Instead of complying with paragraph (1) an agricultural motor vehicle may comply with Community Directive 79/1073.

(6)  Every wiper and washer fitted in accordance with this regulation shall at all times while a vehicle is being used on a road be maintained in efficient working order and be properly adjusted.

Older regulations just required an "efficient means of clearing the windscreen so that the driver has an adequate view of the road" which I believe was once held by the courts on one occassion to be fulfilled by the driver's girlfriend standing up and wiping the windscreen manually as required. 

This would have been before 1986, on a 1959 Land Rover II.

Even the functional wipers were pisspoor, but slightly more effective than my girlfriend would have been.

As it was, I only removed the wiper and motor on the passenger side, leaving the functional one on the driver's side.

[AVGresponding]

ebay tat time.

<SNIP>



Not TE, but maybe interesting to some. I've been looking at in-car mini-disc players, and came across this one. It has more sockets in the back than the back of a socket shop! https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/363645094456




<SNIP>

How old is that thing? It supports Mini-Disc and MagicGate 
Must be some kind of Sony clone.

It's a Sony made Toyota OEM unit, even more fun it's JDM so many of the instructions/buttons etc are in Japanese, and there's no English manual available. I won't be buying it, but I suppose if I did I could use google lens to translate what I needed.
All in-car minidisc players are old, it's an obsolete technology. I still like it though.

[AVGresponding]

ebay tat time.

If I had the space/need for this boat anchor, I'd be bidding on it:  https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/294806489753

Mine is a bit different...

Damn you AVG, I was kind of hoping it would come down in price a bit more, the plug-in is no different, but it has the storage frame, probably with unknown/knackered condition storage tube, they have no-protection & are very very easily damaged. 
The storage function on the 141S I have here, is pretty much unusable because the tube is trashed.

https://www.vintage-radio.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1323069&postcount=16
With an HP storage scope, ALWAYS set the trace brightness in one of the storage modes, NEVER in 'Conv'

In 'Conv' you cannot see when you have the beam current too high and flaring occurs... it's easy to have the beam current high enough that it eventually physically cuts through the storage mesh.

There is no protection on these things. Tektronix were a bit cleverer in this area.

With a spectrum analyser, I suggest you use it in storage mode only and just turn the persistence control low so you don't get multiple trace build-up.

HP CRTs are completely irreplaceable, especially storage ones because people can easily ruin them. There aren't many storage mainframes left in working order.

David

It'll probably go unsold and get relisted again. It's an expensive gamble given the shipping costs.

[Cerebus]

Per chance a Lucas motor?  Prince of wiperless? 

Well it's the first electrical failure that the car has had in its life since it was made in 1997, except for consumables like lamps, so I can't complain and Lucas can be reasonably proud of a record of all the electrical and electronic parts lasting nearly 25 years sans trouble.

[Cerebus]

Firmware is a mass noun without number, like butter, or snow.

Latin has a term for this; "plurale tantum"

Unlike an Italian family discussing who the eldest daughter was going to marry, which would be plurale tantrum. 

[AVGresponding]

Don't know about anyone else on here, but I'm very dissatisfied with the price of this digital VOM, 
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/313870712122


David

Yes, I saw that too. The price kept it off my watch list!   

[AVGresponding]

You really need to look into one of those cheap Chinese component tester. Many of the newer ones will ID Zeners up to 8-15V, and most will identify switching (1N4148, etc) diodes as well, or at least give enuf parameters you can figure that out.

I wholeheartedly recommend the ESR02; offered under many brands but always looks like this in maroon or black. If you shop carefully, you should be able to pick it up with tweezer probes for US$25-35 equiv. Flexibility and more importantly, usability (usable sockets, SMD testbed and tweezer options) put the value off the hook.

https://www.amazon.com/Transistor-Component-Capacitor-Inductance-Electric/dp/B08PDKVWLZ/

mnem

I am not sure I understand ? Other than the fancy case, it looks like the usual cheap tester everybody has ? I already have one, you can see it in the picture above... it does not have a case so I could get it cheaper, but it looks to be no more no less than your fancy one ?!

I love it  but in the case of this mountain of diodes, it would not have helped me in the slightest : I already know they are diodes, and I already know the pinout, the cathode is clearly marked... what I need to know is the actual part number on them so I can sort them, label them, and pull the datasheet. The tester can't do that...

For basic diode testing any old multimeter is fine. For serious diode testing, there's no substitute for a good power supply, a decade resistor, a good multimeter, and a pen and paper. Well, there is a curve tracer I suppose, but good ones are very expensive.

FTFY
By accident I found the TTI bench PSU (30V 2A) at work, would quite happily EOL Zener diodes when switched on, due to the output capacitance.  A decade box in series was needed to test Zeners, to avoid them ending up shorted.

The Megger used with a DVM, was good for checking high voltage Zeners too, we had some rated at 100V or was it 150V, I can't remember, the Megger did find some ordinary diodes that had been incorrectly fitted by someone else, reverse voltage was much higher than expected. 

David

Hmm, I guess some people are just cack-handed? All the power supplies I have that I'd use for this have quite low output capacitance, and in any case I'd switch on at a low voltage, probably 1V or slightly less, and turn the voltage up slowly until it goes into CC, which I'd also start with much lower than I'd expect to need to get a stable bias.

[AVGresponding]

In other news: My car's wiper motor has packed up. Fault traced (thanks to a suitably rugged yellow Fluke 27 that I'm not scared to put near a circuit connected to a big lead acid battery) and unfortunately it really is a failed wiper motor, not just a 10 minute electrical fix. Looks like a combination of water ingress and  poor design of drainage points.

I had a wiper motor like that once, with the MoT due.

Once I had checked that the wording was "if fitted, windscreen wipers must work", the solution was simple. Yes, it passed

Depending on when it was, you were probably still comitting an offence under the Construction and Use Regulations:

Windscreen wipers and washers

34.—(1)  Subject to paragraphs (4) and (5), every vehicle fitted with a windscreen shall, unless the driver can obtain an adequate view to the front of the vehicle without looking through the windscreen, be fitted with one or more efficient automatic windscreen wipers capable of clearing the windscreen so that the driver has an adequate view of the road in front of both sides of the vehicle and to the front of the vehicle.

(2)  Save as provided in paragraphs (3), (4) and (5), every wheeled vehicle required by paragraph (1) to be fitted with a wiper or wipers shall also be fitted with a windscreen washer capable of cleaning, in conjunction with the windscreen wiper, the area of the windscreen swept by the wiper of mud or similar deposit.

(3)  The requirement specified in paragraph (2) does not apply in respect of—

(a) an agricultural motor vehicle (other than a vehicle first used on or after 1st June 1986 which is driven at more than 20 mph);

(b) a track-laying vehicle;

(c) a vehicle having a maximum speed not exceeding 20 mph; or

(d) a vehicle being used to provide a local service, as defined in the Transport Act 1985.

(4)  Instead of complying with paragraphs (1) and (2), a vehicle may comply with Community Directive 78/318.

(5)  Instead of complying with paragraph (1) an agricultural motor vehicle may comply with Community Directive 79/1073.

(6)  Every wiper and washer fitted in accordance with this regulation shall at all times while a vehicle is being used on a road be maintained in efficient working order and be properly adjusted.

Older regulations just required an "efficient means of clearing the windscreen so that the driver has an adequate view of the road" which I believe was once held by the courts on one occassion to be fulfilled by the driver's girlfriend standing up and wiping the windscreen manually as required. 

Just remove the wipers and coat the screen with something like this: https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/224834036429

[Cerebus]

Just remove the wipers and coat the screen with something like this: https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/224834036429

On a friend and colleague's suggestion, who had good results with it, I tried Rain-X about 20 years ago. My experience is that it is so hydrophobic that on windows with wipers the film of water left trailing the wiper breaks up into tiny tiny droplets instantly, leaving a foggy effect. So although it works very well without using your wipers in light rain at high enough speeds, at slow speeds there's not enough air flow to push the droplets off, and at high speeds or downpours when you have to use the wipers the fogging effect actually reduces visibility. To this day I still use it on exterior mirrors and side and rear windows to good effect, but I don't use it on the front windscreen.

[Robert763]

In other news: My car's wiper motor has packed up. Fault traced (thanks to a suitably rugged yellow Fluke 27 that I'm not scared to put near a circuit connected to a big lead acid battery) and unfortunately it really is a failed wiper motor, not just a 10 minute electrical fix. Looks like a combination of water ingress and  poor design of drainage points.

I had a wiper motor like that once, with the MoT due.

Once I had checked that the wording was "if fitted, windscreen wipers must work", the solution was simple. Yes, it passed

Depending on when it was, you were probably still comitting an offence under the Construction and Use Regulations:

Windscreen wipers and washers

34.—(1)  Subject to paragraphs (4) and (5), every vehicle fitted with a windscreen shall, unless the driver can obtain an adequate view to the front of the vehicle without looking through the windscreen, be fitted with one or more efficient automatic windscreen wipers capable of clearing the windscreen so that the driver has an adequate view of the road in front of both sides of the vehicle and to the front of the vehicle.

(2)  Save as provided in paragraphs (3), (4) and (5), every wheeled vehicle required by paragraph (1) to be fitted with a wiper or wipers shall also be fitted with a windscreen washer capable of cleaning, in conjunction with the windscreen wiper, the area of the windscreen swept by the wiper of mud or similar deposit.

(3)  The requirement specified in paragraph (2) does not apply in respect of—

(a) an agricultural motor vehicle (other than a vehicle first used on or after 1st June 1986 which is driven at more than 20 mph);

(b) a track-laying vehicle;

(c) a vehicle having a maximum speed not exceeding 20 mph; or

(d) a vehicle being used to provide a local service, as defined in the Transport Act 1985.

(4)  Instead of complying with paragraphs (1) and (2), a vehicle may comply with Community Directive 78/318.

(5)  Instead of complying with paragraph (1) an agricultural motor vehicle may comply with Community Directive 79/1073.

(6)  Every wiper and washer fitted in accordance with this regulation shall at all times while a vehicle is being used on a road be maintained in efficient working order and be properly adjusted.

Older regulations just required an "efficient means of clearing the windscreen so that the driver has an adequate view of the road" which I believe was once held by the courts on one occassion to be fulfilled by the driver's girlfriend standing up and wiping the windscreen manually as required. 

This would have been before 1986, on a 1959 Land Rover II.

Even the functional wipers were pisspoor, but slightly more effective than my girlfriend would have been.

As it was, I only removed the wiper and motor on the passenger side, leaving the functional one on the driver's side.

You don't need wipers on a Series Landrover. You just folld the windscreen down 
I left my SIII with the MOT garage (which happened to be just cross the road and run by a Landrover enthusiast) along with a box of parts and instructions to do the stuff needed that I had not got around to. The contents of the box included a new washer nozzle. When I called back after work the Landy had an MOT. but the washer nozzle was still broken.
MOT inspectors said "You have to take the dashboard trim out, it's a pig of a job. It's got  fold down screen so you don't need it"
It was  LWB Hardtop 
Investigation later that week revealed that with a bit of drilling and a helicoil insert I was able to fit the jet of the new washer nozzle to the pillar of the old one.
A rear window wiper if fitted must work, but you don't have to have one.
The MOT does not check compliance with the Construction and Use regulations.

[mnementh]

The problem with that (at least in some locales over here) is if you have a inspection station that happens to also be a repair shop... Evidently, one of the "weasel-word phrases" in the manual issued to them, to prevent liability of the state, is "If a modification to the vehicle is unsafe in your opinion, you can fail the inspection to prevent liability to your business."

I ran afoul of this a while back in Texas... after moving from San Antonio, where I'd been driving Franken-Cruiser for 3 inspection cycles, to a small town where there were no State Inspection centers, I innocently took my beast to the closest garage. They failed it due to a rear windshield I'd fabbed of 1/4" lexan and sealed in place with 3 pints of silicone RTV. That had not budged a mm for 3 years.

You'd think it was to sell me the repair; but nobody even tried; they just wanted it out of their shop.

After replacing the rear liftgate, I took it back to them; once the same mechanic started to fill out the inspection paperwork, I   and left.

Couldn't shake the dust of that shithole town off my heels fast enough, I tell you what.

mnem
dickbags deserve no respect.

[Neomys Sapiens]

Muahahaha! Soo cheap and all mine!

[mnementh]

I'll just leave this lying here, where any random watershrew might trip over it...   

mnem
 

[tggzzz]

In other news: My car's wiper motor has packed up. Fault traced (thanks to a suitably rugged yellow Fluke 27 that I'm not scared to put near a circuit connected to a big lead acid battery) and unfortunately it really is a failed wiper motor, not just a 10 minute electrical fix. Looks like a combination of water ingress and  poor design of drainage points.

I had a wiper motor like that once, with the MoT due.

Once I had checked that the wording was "if fitted, windscreen wipers must work", the solution was simple. Yes, it passed

Depending on when it was, you were probably still comitting an offence under the Construction and Use Regulations:

Windscreen wipers and washers

34.—(1)  Subject to paragraphs (4) and (5), every vehicle fitted with a windscreen shall, unless the driver can obtain an adequate view to the front of the vehicle without looking through the windscreen, be fitted with one or more efficient automatic windscreen wipers capable of clearing the windscreen so that the driver has an adequate view of the road in front of both sides of the vehicle and to the front of the vehicle.

(2)  Save as provided in paragraphs (3), (4) and (5), every wheeled vehicle required by paragraph (1) to be fitted with a wiper or wipers shall also be fitted with a windscreen washer capable of cleaning, in conjunction with the windscreen wiper, the area of the windscreen swept by the wiper of mud or similar deposit.

(3)  The requirement specified in paragraph (2) does not apply in respect of—

(a) an agricultural motor vehicle (other than a vehicle first used on or after 1st June 1986 which is driven at more than 20 mph);

(b) a track-laying vehicle;

(c) a vehicle having a maximum speed not exceeding 20 mph; or

(d) a vehicle being used to provide a local service, as defined in the Transport Act 1985.

(4)  Instead of complying with paragraphs (1) and (2), a vehicle may comply with Community Directive 78/318.

(5)  Instead of complying with paragraph (1) an agricultural motor vehicle may comply with Community Directive 79/1073.

(6)  Every wiper and washer fitted in accordance with this regulation shall at all times while a vehicle is being used on a road be maintained in efficient working order and be properly adjusted.

Older regulations just required an "efficient means of clearing the windscreen so that the driver has an adequate view of the road" which I believe was once held by the courts on one occassion to be fulfilled by the driver's girlfriend standing up and wiping the windscreen manually as required. 

This would have been before 1986, on a 1959 Land Rover II.

Even the functional wipers were pisspoor, but slightly more effective than my girlfriend would have been.

As it was, I only removed the wiper and motor on the passenger side, leaving the functional one on the driver's side.

You don't need wipers on a Seriws Landrover. You just folld the windscreen down 

True, but then I'd have to wear waterproofs and

and I'd still end up looking like a happy biker


No need to worry about water draining off the clothes and accumulating in the footwell, though. There were many empty boltholes there.

I left my SIII with the MOT garage (which happened to be just cross the road and run by a Landrover enthusiast) along with a box of parts and instructions to do the stuff needed that I had not got around to. The contents of the box included a new washer nozzle. When I called back after work the Landy had an MOT. but the washer nozzle was still broken.
MOT inspectors said "You have to take the dashboard trim out, it's a pig of a job. It's got  fold down screen so you don't need it"
It was  LWB Hardtop 
Investigation later that week revealed that with a bit of drilling and a helicoil insert I was able to fit the jet of the new washer nozzle to the pillar of the old one.
A rear window wiper if fitted must work, but you don't have to have one.
The MOT does not check compliance with the Construction and Use regulations.

Mine was an S2 SWB hardtop. With many bits from Minis, e.g. rear lights and driver's seat.

[Robert763]

I just realised I made an unsupported claim about current clamps the other day. So here is proof.
I make that 23, but I do have another of the little 100A AC clamps and a LEM Analyst 1000P power analyser that has a current clamp function. Neither were to hand when I took the photos. The PR30 has not arrived yet. Oh and a couple of shunts in case I want to get invasive.

[Ice-Tea]

Mind. Blown.

[mnementh]

On another front... I'm having a bit of a fab & repair problem with my BBQ grill. I have a couple of the valves which have suffered impact damage; after two days of searching, it appears this valve is manufactured of weapons-grade unobtanium. 🤣

This little iron casting supports the knob shaft, which is separate from the brass casting which houses the cone valve. It would be a simple thing to whip out a replacement on a lathe...




....until you look at the business end. This interlock is what turns the cone valve slug in the brass casting still on the grill. Replicating that turns this project exponentially more complicated. I am seriously considering this as my first actual Lost PLA 3DP project...

mnem
🙀

[Robert763]

Why? The 432x and it's sensor is still the North American transfer standard. I think it was only lack of parts that made them stop making the original.
The only real alternative is the R&S NRP-Z5x series.

[Ice-Tea]

I wonder if it's some kind of homage. Trying to think of other products that are 100% different but still named more or less the same.

[Zucca]

I just realised I made an unsupported claim about current clamps the other day. So here is proof.
I make that 23 but I do have another of the little 100A cllamps and a LEM Analyst 1000P power analyser that has a currnet clamp function. Neither were to hand when I took the photos. The PR30 hs not arrived yet. Oh and a couple of shunts in case I want to get invasive.

holy shit

[mansaxel]

I just realised I made an unsupported claim about current clamps the other day. So here is proof.
I make that 23 but I do have another of the little 100A cllamps and a LEM Analyst 1000P power analyser that has a currnet clamp function. Neither were to hand when I took the photos. The PR30 hs not arrived yet. Oh and a couple of shunts in case I want to get invasive.

But where's the [hp] 428b ? ? ?