-
Categories
-
Platforms
-
Content
well that doesn't make sense
you sure you have the negative tip of the meter on the negative of C158 ?
yeah, within the last few days of your testing
do you have a glass fuse rated around 150 to 250mA ?
if so break the glass and retrieve the fuse wire and solder it across the IC105 terminals
Replaced IC105 with a 315mA glass fuse, closest I could find.
That has restored the red light on switch on, relieved
Reading 16.7V on both legs of IC105
Voltage across C158 =16.78V
But getting no voltage on any of the legs of IC104 (the 7805)
Q151/R158 = 0.68V
That has restored the red light on switch on, relieved
Reading 16.7V on both legs of IC105
Voltage across C158 =16.78V
But getting no voltage on any of the legs of IC104 (the 7805)
Q151/R158 = 0.68V
73's de Edd
- Aug 21, 2015
- 3,622
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2015
- Messages
- 3,622
Sir bushtech . . . . . . .
now . . . .Dave . . . . . he sez . . . . .
Which directly relates to . . . . . " der bushmeister " . . . . . and his meter probes experiences / fallacies/ woes and OUR related " The Great Polyester Capacitor Debacle and Escapades Extraordinaire of 2016. "
That is SPECIFICALLY why I remoted the UBER-CLOSE proximity test points measurements of that u/p chip, so as to be far-far away from it . . . . by my specifying two common alternate connections .
CURRENT SITUATION:
Until available, you can work around the demise of that that ICP-15 circuit protector . . . . .rated 600 ma - 50V . . . . . with a standard blow 1/2 A fuse.
Those posted schematic clips were absolutely too skimpy on pixel density.
The relevant expected work areas to be encompassed are condensed within the very bottom illustration .
It is being of low enough composed density so as to be free hosted, but if it is kicked into 2 x mag . . . all of its info is then being very easily readable.
Additionally, earlier, there was one worry and some extended conversation about the units u/p condition, and the havoc that a bad u/p could wreak.
That one voltage measurement given, tells me that the unit is still alive, knows its job, what day of the week it is and where it is and that it was even trying to respond to your prior given command of turning on the unit.
BUT . . . .alas . . . . .that forthcoming logic high output is and was being overridden by a default condition that was detected in the system by a feedback loop to the u/p unit.
PRIMARY INTEREST IS INITIALLY TO DESIGNATED SECTION . . . . . . in GREEN CIRCLE A . . . . .
I am requesting about every conceivable voltage and current loop encompassed, within these 12 RED RECTANGLE voltage. test points, to be used for our analysis.
Measure them as soon as the standby/sub power supply is again outputting DC voltage at test point 2 on, as I suspicion all is now still being well at test point 1.
TECHNO REFERENCING:
73's de Edd
now . . . .Dave . . . . . he sez . . . . .
Which directly relates to . . . . . " der bushmeister " . . . . . and his meter probes experiences / fallacies/ woes and OUR related " The Great Polyester Capacitor Debacle and Escapades Extraordinaire of 2016. "
That is SPECIFICALLY why I remoted the UBER-CLOSE proximity test points measurements of that u/p chip, so as to be far-far away from it . . . . by my specifying two common alternate connections .
CURRENT SITUATION:
Until available, you can work around the demise of that that ICP-15 circuit protector . . . . .rated 600 ma - 50V . . . . . with a standard blow 1/2 A fuse.
Those posted schematic clips were absolutely too skimpy on pixel density.
The relevant expected work areas to be encompassed are condensed within the very bottom illustration .
It is being of low enough composed density so as to be free hosted, but if it is kicked into 2 x mag . . . all of its info is then being very easily readable.
Additionally, earlier, there was one worry and some extended conversation about the units u/p condition, and the havoc that a bad u/p could wreak.
That one voltage measurement given, tells me that the unit is still alive, knows its job, what day of the week it is and where it is and that it was even trying to respond to your prior given command of turning on the unit.
BUT . . . .alas . . . . .that forthcoming logic high output is and was being overridden by a default condition that was detected in the system by a feedback loop to the u/p unit.
PRIMARY INTEREST IS INITIALLY TO DESIGNATED SECTION . . . . . . in GREEN CIRCLE A . . . . .
I am requesting about every conceivable voltage and current loop encompassed, within these 12 RED RECTANGLE voltage. test points, to be used for our analysis.
Measure them as soon as the standby/sub power supply is again outputting DC voltage at test point 2 on, as I suspicion all is now still being well at test point 1.
TECHNO REFERENCING:
73's de Edd
Last edited by a moderator:
73's de Edd
- Aug 21, 2015
- 3,622
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2015
- Messages
- 3,622
bushtech . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Hmmmmmmmm . . .fancy meeting you here . .. . thought you would be out in the bush by now.
You initially threw me on that designated " and I was off looking for a non existant integrated circuit . . . IC105 . . . better to refer to it afterwards as an ICP.
So . . . . . in looking for your dead IC104 looks like any power down there is an impossibility, presently due to no power to it from from the MAIN power transformer.
THAT is due to the MAIN power relay, being driven by Q115, not being activated by a valid logic high level at its base.
All to be sorted and figured out by your forthcoming magical voltage readings.
73's de Edd
Hmmmmmmmm . . .fancy meeting you here . .. . thought you would be out in the bush by now.
You initially threw me on that designated " and I was off looking for a non existant integrated circuit . . . IC105 . . . better to refer to it afterwards as an ICP.
So . . . . . in looking for your dead IC104 looks like any power down there is an impossibility, presently due to no power to it from from the MAIN power transformer.
THAT is due to the MAIN power relay, being driven by Q115, not being activated by a valid logic high level at its base.
All to be sorted and figured out by your forthcoming magical voltage readings.
73's de Edd
Last edited by a moderator:
73's de Edd
- Aug 21, 2015
- 3,622
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2015
- Messages
- 3,622
Sir bushtech . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Is your ICP-15 circuit protector the same as IC105 fuse?
YES
3. 5.6V and 0.6V on base
You seem to be interpreting that IC as being a transistor, that center leads diode is holding ground return of that IC up one diode junction voltage . . . .~600MV . . so that the resultant output of the regulator is being at 5.6 VDC instead of a customary 5 VDC at its output at RED 3..
All of the ancillary support resistors used around Q151 are being of too high of values to " burn out ".
I was certainly expecting SOME of that developed 5.6 volts to pass through R158.
Power down the system and bleed down the supply voltage across C158 to zero to make the circuitry safe to then go to diode test mode to check out all of the junctions on that Q151. Pray that it has a dead short and crunched through from its collector to emitter.
If that passes, then test the R158 resistor.
While the power is still off, go into OHMS mode and test from RED 4 to ground.
Something at that junction of connections is wiping out the previous normal 5.6 that you have back at RED 3.
It should not be at tie in of the PWR_DOWN line feeding back to Q201, which is being a digital transistor , which has several Ks of base to emitter resistance that is made into its semiconductor die.
73's de Edd
Is your ICP-15 circuit protector the same as IC105 fuse?
YES
3. 5.6V and 0.6V on base
You seem to be interpreting that IC as being a transistor, that center leads diode is holding ground return of that IC up one diode junction voltage . . . .~600MV . . so that the resultant output of the regulator is being at 5.6 VDC instead of a customary 5 VDC at its output at RED 3..
All of the ancillary support resistors used around Q151 are being of too high of values to " burn out ".
I was certainly expecting SOME of that developed 5.6 volts to pass through R158.
Power down the system and bleed down the supply voltage across C158 to zero to make the circuitry safe to then go to diode test mode to check out all of the junctions on that Q151. Pray that it has a dead short and crunched through from its collector to emitter.
If that passes, then test the R158 resistor.
While the power is still off, go into OHMS mode and test from RED 4 to ground.
Something at that junction of connections is wiping out the previous normal 5.6 that you have back at RED 3.
It should not be at tie in of the PWR_DOWN line feeding back to Q201, which is being a digital transistor , which has several Ks of base to emitter resistance that is made into its semiconductor die.
73's de Edd
Last edited by a moderator:
73's de Edd
- Aug 21, 2015
- 3,622
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2015
- Messages
- 3,622
.
Sir bushtech . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
If this reads back weird . . .to any spectators sitting waaaay up in the highest bleachers of the peanut gallery,. . . .that is because I am having to wait to get the evolving voltage measurements being sent back.
Only then I can make my pertinent comments.
Now with my receipt of that RED 7 voltage reading of 7.8 volts, means that when it then travels down to R160 and on into the base of Q151, it should drive it into conduction from collector to emitter and pull that 5.6 VDC on down to only the voltage level of a couple of semi junctions voltages.
Any chance that you scaled on up so high on your voltage range , that you would have not caught the low 600 or 1200 mv readings ?
When you earlier had specified 0 VDC ?
73's de Edd
Sir bushtech . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
If this reads back weird . . .to any spectators sitting waaaay up in the highest bleachers of the peanut gallery,. . . .that is because I am having to wait to get the evolving voltage measurements being sent back.
Only then I can make my pertinent comments.
Now with my receipt of that RED 7 voltage reading of 7.8 volts, means that when it then travels down to R160 and on into the base of Q151, it should drive it into conduction from collector to emitter and pull that 5.6 VDC on down to only the voltage level of a couple of semi junctions voltages.
Any chance that you scaled on up so high on your voltage range , that you would have not caught the low 600 or 1200 mv readings ?
When you earlier had specified 0 VDC ?
73's de Edd
Last edited:
73's de Edd
- Aug 21, 2015
- 3,622
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2015
- Messages
- 3,622
Collector at Red 4 connected to ground
Do I interpret the above as that your test was being from the transistors collector to emitter/ground ?
Do I interpret the above as that your test was being from the transistors collector to emitter/ground ?
Similar threads
