sci.electronics.repair@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

* Pet hates ? - 3 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/e7925b5c2233e9ec?hl=en
* ESR meter built in seconds - 16 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/43a6d9df89036edc?hl=en
* Broken CFL - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/75850803cb529797?hl=en
* California phasing out light bulbs... - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/3456a0537f158184?hl=en
* Two phases or not? - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/0a29a801d6e01e9e?hl=en
* PING Jeff RE: VX-5 - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/8ca180bfba9ba753?hl=en
* Easy ESR meter for Electros - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/915f2964a62e59af?hl=en

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Pet hates ?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/e7925b5c2233e9ec?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Jan 24 2011 6:11 pm
From: "Arfa Daily"

"Jeff Liebermann" <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote in message
news:724qj6dm5bqhhs0jnuslhmshppfsnf1gjm@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 18:21:21 -0800, David Nebenzahl
> <nobody@but.us.chickens> wrote:
>
>>But beware: up here in the Beige Area, where we like to think we're so
>>much superior to our SoCal cousins, we never use the article, saying
>>instead "take 80 to get to Berkeley" or "take 101 to 280 to 17 to get
>>down to Santa Cruz". (One can easily spot newcomers to San Francisco who
>>refer to "the 80" or "the 101". That's just SO wrong!)
>
> Ahem. I beg to differ slightly. In the People's Republic of Santa
> Cruz, it's called "Highway 9", "Highway 17", and "Highway 1". They're
> never referred to by their correct name of "US Route 9", "State Route
> 17", and "Calif State Route 1".
>
> In Smog Angeles, Hwy 1 is called "Pacific Coast Highway", State Route
> 90 is the "Richard M. Nixon Freeway", and Interstate 5 is called the
> "San Diego Freeway".
>
> When I lived over the hill in San Jose in the late 1970's, the
> numerical designations were rarely used. Interstate 880 was called
> "the Nimitz". These days, nobody remembers Admiral Nimitz so it has
> become "880".
>
> Caltrans seems to be making a concerted and expensive effort to add to
> the confusion by numbering all the freeway exits and onramps.
> Unfortunately, they didn't plan it very well, so some of the numbers
> are already out of sequence and there are postfixes such as "Exit
> 11c". I have yet to hear anyone refer to a specifically named exit by
> its numerical equivalent.
>
> When one visits the People's Republic of Santa Cruz, the point of
> entry is what is called "the fish-hook" because of a 270 degree tight
> turn. It's been greatly improved by an expensive rebuild 4 years ago,
> but it still offers a fair approximation of a roller coaster ride:
> <http://we.got.net/~mapman/streets/SantaCruz/Fishhook/fishhook.html>
> My office is adjacent to this abomination. I would estimate we lose
> one large truck to the tight turns every 2 weeks.
>
>
>
> --
> Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com

Interestingly, here in the UK, the exits from the motorways - loosely
'freeways' equivalent, I guess - have always been numbered, and have always
been referred to by number. So someone giving directions might say "take the
M1 north, and exit at junction 15 onto the A508", 'A' being the
designator for a major road, but without motorway status.

Arfa

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Jan 24 2011 6:20 pm
From: "Arfa Daily"

"Jeff Liebermann" <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote in message
news:qu2qj6h0vu59khrip67abv15vmoero3l94@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 01:50:24 -0000, "Arfa Daily"
> <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>>"Mark Zacharias" <mark_zacharias@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>>news:4d381c8b$0$19215$c3e8da3$aae71a0a@news.astraweb.com...
>>> People begging me to work on stuff which I used to turn away, but now
>>> have
>>> to take in because business is slow.
>>> Mark Z.
>
>>Yep. Amen to that one ...
>>Arfa
>
> Not much of a change here. Most of my work is fixing computers,
> networks, and printers. That part of the business has decreased
> substantially. However, I've always done 2-way radio, audio,
> electronic music, cell phones, home theater, monitors, power tools,
> test equipment, HP calculators, kids toys, and whatever the customers
> need fixing. The only recent change is that I'm doing less computers
> and more of the other stuff. However, I don't think it has much to do
> with the global economic situation. The preference of the American
> consumer for cheap junk, usually made in China, has displaced most of
> the higher reliability, but also higher priced, better quality
> products. After discovering that the cheap junk replacement is no
> better than the original cheap junk device that had failed, they start
> looking to me to help them keep the cheap junk alive. It's possible,
> but since they'll often pay more than the device is worth just so that
> they don't have to deal with the vendor, I can make money on such
> repairs. Often, nothing more than a thorough cleaning is all that's
> required. I also fix bicycles, chain saws, and optics, but since I
> don't really know what I'm doing, I avoid major challenges. If I had
> concentrated solely on computer repair, I would have been in serious
> financial trouble, but by offering my services to fix almost anything
> (i.e. diversification), a drop in one area, won't wipe out the
> business.
>
> Oh, there is one area that I won't do any more. I'm no longer able to
> the construction work necessary to run CAT5 all over a building. I
> contract that out to younger and more suicidal kids, who are usually
> grateful for the work and money.
>
>
> --
> Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com

As part of our new government's financial rescue measures, to drag the
country back from the brink of bankruptcy where the previous government had
left us, VAT (the national sales tax) has just been raised from the
ball-breaking level of 17.5%, where it had been for some years, to an
eye-watering 20%. This seems to have started improving the situation in
terms of repair business, as repair over new re-purchase, is now a little
more viable than it was. I definitely think that I am seeing a slight -
albeit slow - upturn in business. But as you say, diversification is the
key. My mantra on this front has always been "I ain't proud. If it's got
wires in it, I'll fix it". I have recently started to get involved in the
repair of DMX lighting equipment. There seems to be little true expertise in
the field, beyond the poor attempts to rectify problems, that are carried
out by the theatre lighting techs.

Arfa

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Jan 24 2011 6:38 pm
From: Jeff Liebermann

On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 02:11:27 -0000, "Arfa Daily"
<arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>Interestingly, here in the UK, the exits from the motorways - loosely
>'freeways' equivalent, I guess - have always been numbered, and have always
>been referred to by number. So someone giving directions might say "take the
>M1 north, and exit at junction 15 onto the A508", 'A' being the
>designator for a major road, but without motorway status.
>
>Arfa

California is different:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Numbered_Exit_Uniform_System>
<http://www.cahighways.org/num-exitnum.html>
A suffix letter A, B, C, D or E is used on multi-exit
interchanges, or on multiple interchange exits within
the same exit number zone.

As a former member of the Anti Digit Dialing League and fan of The
Prisoner (I am not a number...), I find the whole effort amusing.
<http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,827416,00.html>

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

==============================================================================
TOPIC: ESR meter built in seconds
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/43a6d9df89036edc?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 16 ==
Date: Mon, Jan 24 2011 6:20 pm
From: Jeff Liebermann

On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 19:20:58 -0600, Jeffrey Angus
<jangus@suddenlink.net> wrote:

>On 1/24/2011 6:40 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
>>> Set the audio gen to about 100kHz and connect the output
>>> across the electro under test -- then connect the scope probes
>>> directly to the same cap (not the generator). You should see a
>>> small voltage at 100kHz on the scope.
>>
>> If one takes that literally, the scope probes /will/ be connected directly
>> to the generator.
>>
>> Did you leave something out?

>Nope, it IS connected directly to the generator.
>And the capacitor across both.

Retch.

>You see a reduced value of signal due to the ESR of the capacitor
>vs the source impedance of the signal generator.

That would work if you knew the exact source resistance of the
generator and that the generator is not going to try and protect
itself from what it considers to be an AC short circuit load.

If you have 1 volt of output swing, and an assumed function generator
output impedance of 50 ohms, the short circuit current will be about
20ma. Shove that into a 0.5 ohm electrolytic cazapitor, and you'll
measure maybe 10mv across the cazapitor. That's kinda hard to see. Of
course you could supply more than 1 volt but then you will have some
problems trying to use this technique without removing the cazapitor
from the PCB.

For what it's worth, I did it this way until I bought an ESR meter.
Later, I decided to actually measure the output impedance of my
function generator. The data sheet said 50/75 ohms, but it was
anywhere between 30 and 100 ohms depending on the position of the dial
and output step attenuator. So much for accuracy.

If you look carefully at the schematics supplied below, most of them
put a known series resistance at the output of the generator section
to the cazapitor. You could do the same thing with the function
generator. 100 ohms in series with an alleged 50 ohms will not
magically make the method more accurate, but it will reduce the error
to a tolerable level.

>Pretty simple.
>Not direct reading, but accurate comparison.
>Jeff

Nothing is simple, but these examples might help:

Measuring Capacitor Self-inductance and ESR
<http://www.emcesd.com/tt020100.htm>

Oscilloscope ESR Tester
<http://electronics-diy.com/electronic_schematic.php?id=948>

99 Cent ESR Test Adapter
<http://octopus.freeyellow.com/99.html>

More links at the bottom of this page:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ESR_meter>

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

== 2 of 16 ==
Date: Mon, Jan 24 2011 6:29 pm
From: "Phil Allison"

"David Nebenzahl"

> Skimming through a bunch of ESR meter schematics, this seems to be the
> game plan for most of them:
>
> Oscillator --> attenuator --> cap under test -->
> op amp/comparator --> rectifier --> meter
>
> (osc. is usually around 50-100 kHz)
>
>
> (the attenuator delivers only millivolts to the cap being tested, avoiding
> electrolytic polarity issues and any semiconductor junction resistances)

** The idea of including an "attenuator " is misleading.

The electro under test needs to be driven with a known *current* at
00kHz - 20 to 50 mA is good.

Simply shorting my bench audio generator with the output level set to max
produces 29.7 mV into a 1 ohm resistor at 100kHz or 30mA, near enough.

If the electro under test has an ESR of 100 milliohms - the above set up
produces 3 mV rms across the cap which is easily enough viewed on most
scopes.

Long as you connect the scope direct to the leads of the electro and know
the current level from the generator - actual ESR values can be found.

.... Phil

== 3 of 16 ==
Date: Mon, Jan 24 2011 6:40 pm
From: stratus46@yahoo.com

On Jan 24, 5:55 pm, David Nebenzahl <nob...@but.us.chickens> wrote:
> On 1/24/2011 5:20 PM Jeffrey Angus spake thus:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 1/24/2011 6:40 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
>
> >>> Set the audio gen to about 100kHz and connect the output across
> >>> the electro under test -- then connect the scope probes directly
> >>> to the same cap (not the generator). You should see a small
> >>> voltage at 100kHz on the scope.
>
> >> If one takes that literally, the scope probes /will/ be connected
> >> directly to the generator.
>
> >> Did you leave something out?
>
> > Nope, it IS connected directly to the generator.
> > And the capacitor across both.
>
> > You see a reduced value of signal due to the ESR of the capacitor
> > vs the source impedance of the signal generator.
>
> > Pretty simple.
>
> > Not direct reading, but accurate comparison.
>
> Skimming through a bunch of ESR meter schematics, this seems to be the
> game plan for most of them:
>
>    Oscillator --> attenuator --> cap under test -->
>    op amp/comparator --> rectifier --> meter
>
> (osc. is usually around 50-100 kHz)
>
> Gots to build me one someday ...
>
> (the attenuator delivers only millivolts to the cap being tested,
> avoiding electrolytic polarity issues and any semiconductor junction
> resistances)
>
> --
> Comment on quaint Usenet customs, from Usenet:
>
>    To me, the *plonk...* reminds me of the old man at the public hearing
>    who stands to make his point, then removes his hearing aid as a sign
>    that he is not going to hear any rebuttals.

Not likely to do much better than the MUL3333 ESR meter from Mat
Electronics for $50. The main 'quirk' on the unit is the battery case
holds 6 AA cells but it's wired as 3 parallel groups of 2 cells
meaning just use 2 AA cells and skip the other 4. Very good value for
the money. With any ESR meter there are 'gotchas' to beware of. Any
ceramic caps in parallel with a 'lytic will mask the true condition of
the 'lytic. If it reads bad, it IS but if it reads good it might not
be. May times I've run into boards with many caps of the same value.
If one of those is bad I change all of that value figuring if one is
bad the others aren't far behind. Also, the output caps in SMPS need
to be nearly perfect. 'Good enough' rarely is. When in doubt toss em
out.

http://www.matelectronics.com/

G²

== 4 of 16 ==
Date: Mon, Jan 24 2011 6:40 pm
From: "Phil Allison"

"Jeff Liebermann"

>
> If you have 1 volt of output swing, and an assumed function generator
> output impedance of 50 ohms, the short circuit current will be about
> 20ma. Shove that into a 0.5 ohm electrolytic cazapitor, and you'll
> measure maybe 10mv across the cazapitor. That's kinda hard to see.

** What kind of POS scope do you have ???

10mV rms = 28.3 mV p-p.

My scope goes down to 5mV per division - then has a 5X mag switch if
needed.

> Of
> course you could supply more than 1 volt but then you will have some
> problems trying to use this technique without removing the cazapitor
> from the PCB.

** Utter bollocks !!!

As your own example proves.

> For what it's worth, I did it this way until I bought an ESR meter.
> Later, I decided to actually measure the output impedance of my
> function generator. The data sheet said 50/75 ohms, but it was
> anywhere between 30 and 100 ohms depending on the position of the dial
> and output step attenuator.

** Just set it to max and that's it for ESR testing.

> If you look carefully at the schematics supplied below, most of them
> put a known series resistance at the output of the generator section
> to the cazapitor. You could do the same thing with the function
> generator. 100 ohms in series with an alleged 50 ohms will not
> magically make the method more accurate, but it will reduce the error
> to a tolerable level.

** More bollocks.

The vast majority of electros have less than 1 ohm ESR values - so any
error in the calculated drive current is TINY in comparison to a 50 ohm
source.

The variation in ESR values between new electros of the same type is far
more.

.... Phil

== 5 of 16 ==
Date: Mon, Jan 24 2011 6:52 pm
From: "Phil Allison"

<stratus46@yahoo.com>

With any ESR meter there are 'gotchas' to beware of. Any
ceramic caps in parallel with a 'lytic will mask the true condition of
the 'lytic.

** Totally insane BOLLOCKS !!!!!

A 0.1uF ceramic has an impedance of 16 ohms at 100KHz - while a typical
100uF electro has an impedance of 0.16 ohms at 100kHz. That is 100 times
less !!!

Imbecile.

If it reads bad, it IS but if it reads good it might not be.

** Only time that is ever true is if the electro is shorted - internally or
externally.

May times I've run into boards with many caps of the same value.
If one of those is bad I change all of that value figuring if one is
bad the others aren't far behind.

** Not a bad idea - if all the electros have been subjected to the same
temps for the same times.

Also, the output caps in SMPS need to be nearly perfect.

** Well, that may be so in some cases.

But designers usually leave a margin for component variations and some
deterioration in electros.

Once the ESR of an electro rises by more than 50%, it may be time for
replacement - cos it is now gonna keep rising.

..... Phil

== 6 of 16 ==
Date: Mon, Jan 24 2011 7:20 pm
From: stratus46@yahoo.com

On Jan 24, 6:52 pm, "Phil Allison" <phi...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
> <stratu...@yahoo.com>
>
> With any ESR meter there are 'gotchas' to beware of. Any
> ceramic caps in parallel with a 'lytic will mask the true condition of
> the 'lytic.
>
> ** Totally insane BOLLOCKS  !!!!!
>
> A 0.1uF ceramic has an impedance of 16 ohms at 100KHz   -   while a typical
> 100uF electro has an impedance of 0.16 ohms at 100kHz. That is 100 times
> less !!!
>
> Imbecile.
>
> If it reads bad, it IS  but if it reads good it might not be.
>
> ** Only time that is ever true is if the electro is shorted -  internally or
> externally.
>
> May times I've run into boards with many caps of the same value.
> If one of those is bad I change all of that value figuring if one is
> bad the others aren't far behind.
>
> ** Not a bad idea - if all the electros have been subjected to the same
> temps for the same times.
>
> Also, the output caps in SMPS need to be nearly perfect.
>
> ** Well, that may be so in some cases.
>
> But designers usually leave a margin for component variations and some
> deterioration in electros.
>
> Once the ESR of an electro rises by more than 50%, it may be time for
> replacement -  cos it is now gonna keep rising.
>
> .....  Phil

Who said anything about 0.1uF? The Sony EQ-45 board in the DVW-500
Digital Betacam has a lot of 100uF surface mount 'lytics, many of
which read 'OK' but when removing the 'lytic, IT reads very bad and
the pads on the board read 'OK' without the 'lytic.

Can't argue with facts.

G²

== 7 of 16 ==
Date: Mon, Jan 24 2011 7:22 pm
From: stratus46@yahoo.com

On Jan 24, 6:52 pm, "Phil Allison" <phi...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
> <stratu...@yahoo.com>
>
> With any ESR meter there are 'gotchas' to beware of. Any
> ceramic caps in parallel with a 'lytic will mask the true condition of
> the 'lytic.
>
> ** Totally insane BOLLOCKS  !!!!!
>
> A 0.1uF ceramic has an impedance of 16 ohms at 100KHz   -   while a typical
> 100uF electro has an impedance of 0.16 ohms at 100kHz. That is 100 times
> less !!!
>
> Imbecile.
>
> If it reads bad, it IS  but if it reads good it might not be.
>
> ** Only time that is ever true is if the electro is shorted -  internally or
> externally.
>
> May times I've run into boards with many caps of the same value.
> If one of those is bad I change all of that value figuring if one is
> bad the others aren't far behind.
>
> ** Not a bad idea - if all the electros have been subjected to the same
> temps for the same times.
>
> Also, the output caps in SMPS need to be nearly perfect.
>
> ** Well, that may be so in some cases.
>
> But designers usually leave a margin for component variations and some
> deterioration in electros.
>
> Once the ESR of an electro rises by more than 50%, it may be time for
> replacement -  cos it is now gonna keep rising.
>
> .....  Phil

Also, your math is wrong hotshot.

G²

== 8 of 16 ==
Date: Mon, Jan 24 2011 7:22 pm
From: Jeff Liebermann

On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 13:40:21 +1100, "Phil Allison" <phil_a@tpg.com.au>
wrote:

>"Jeff Liebermann"
>> If you have 1 volt of output swing, and an assumed function generator
>> output impedance of 50 ohms, the short circuit current will be about
>> 20ma. Shove that into a 0.5 ohm electrolytic cazapitor, and you'll
>> measure maybe 10mv across the cazapitor. That's kinda hard to see.
>
>** What kind of POS scope do you have ???

Tek 2247A. I have several others, but that's the one I like to use.
<http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/pics/home/slides/BL-shop6.html>

>10mV rms = 28.3 mV p-p.

Read what I wrote again. I said "1 volt of output swing" which means
1 volt peak to peak. Sorry for not being absolutely clear. Also, all
the ESR test circuits I've seen use a square wave, which is normally
not measured in RMS units.

>My scope goes down to 5mV per division - then has a 5X mag switch if
>needed.

Mine goes down to 2mv/div. About 1/3 of that is noise. My guess(tm)
is that anything I measure has a built in 1mv error due to this noise.

I think the X5 or whatever magnification on your unspecified model
scope usually refers to the horizontal sweep, not the vertical gain.

>> Of
>> course you could supply more than 1 volt but then you will have some
>> problems trying to use this technique without removing the cazapitor
>> from the PCB.
>
>** Utter bollocks !!!
> As your own example proves.

How so? If the cazapitor happens to appear across a semiconductor
junction, as will happen with the output of an integrated switching
regulator with a reverse protection diode on its output, the
protection diode is going to conduct if fed more than about 0.6V peak
to peak. I think (not sure) that the original Bob Parker meter ran at
about 80mv peak to peak to avoid this manner of problem.

>> For what it's worth, I did it this way until I bought an ESR meter.
>> Later, I decided to actually measure the output impedance of my
>> function generator. The data sheet said 50/75 ohms, but it was
>> anywhere between 30 and 100 ohms depending on the position of the dial
>> and output step attenuator.
>
>** Just set it to max and that's it for ESR testing.

Lets just say I don't like running my test equipment flat out into an
AC short circuit (the cap under test). My cheapo Leader LFG-1300S
function generator has some kind of overcurrent protection circuit on
the output, that limits the square wave output swing, but also mangles
the waveform.

>> If you look carefully at the schematics supplied below, most of them
>> put a known series resistance at the output of the generator section
>> to the cazapitor. You could do the same thing with the function
>> generator. 100 ohms in series with an alleged 50 ohms will not
>> magically make the method more accurate, but it will reduce the error
>> to a tolerable level.
>
>** More bollocks.
>
>The vast majority of electros have less than 1 ohm ESR values - so any
>error in the calculated drive current is TINY in comparison to a 50 ohm
>source.

True, except that the variation between what's considered a good and a
bad electrolytic is sufficiently small that source impedance makes a
difference.
<http://members.ozemail.com.au/~bobpar/2003esrchart.txt>
(Notice the odd variations across the voltage ranges).
I find myself working at the bitter edge of some of the recommended
maximum ESR values all too often. I sometimes have to flip a coin to
decide if the cap is good or bad. The last thing I need is a blurry
oscilloscope trace or an undefined generator source resistance.

>The variation in ESR values between new electros of the same type is far
>more.

Huh? I've taken bags of brand new electrolytic caps and tested them
to see if there was any way to predict which ones would fail and which
ones would survive. For a given value, voltage, and temperature,
they're all about the same. I see wide variations in value (i.e. +80%
to -20%), but the initial ESR just follows the value. However, after
running a crude accelerated lifetime test on the caps (high ripple
current and high temperatures), I find the good and the bad caps
diverging in ESR.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

== 9 of 16 ==
Date: Mon, Jan 24 2011 7:28 pm
From: "Phil Allison"

<stratus46@yahoo.com>
"Phil Allison"
>
>
> With any ESR meter there are 'gotchas' to beware of. Any
> ceramic caps in parallel with a 'lytic will mask the true condition of
> the 'lytic.
>
> ** Totally insane BOLLOCKS !!!!!
>
> A 0.1uF ceramic has an impedance of 16 ohms at 100KHz - while a typical
> 100uF electro has an impedance of 0.16 ohms at 100kHz. That is 100 times
> less !!!
>
> Imbecile.
>
> If it reads bad, it IS but if it reads good it might not be.
>
> ** Only time that is ever true is if the electro is shorted - internally
> or
> externally.
>
> May times I've run into boards with many caps of the same value.
> If one of those is bad I change all of that value figuring if one is
> bad the others aren't far behind.
>
> ** Not a bad idea - if all the electros have been subjected to the same
> temps for the same times.
>
> Also, the output caps in SMPS need to be nearly perfect.
>
> ** Well, that may be so in some cases.
>
> But designers usually leave a margin for component variations and some
> deterioration in electros.
>
> Once the ESR of an electro rises by more than 50%, it may be time for
> replacement - cos it is now gonna keep rising.
>

Who said anything about 0.1uF?

** Read you own post - fuckhead.

" Any ceramic caps in parallel with a 'lytic will mask the true condition of
the 'lytic. "

The Sony EQ-45 board in the DVW-500
Digital Betacam has a lot of 100uF surface mount 'lytics, many of
which read 'OK' but when removing the 'lytic, IT reads very bad and
the pads on the board read 'OK' without the 'lytic.

** Really ??

Can't argue with facts.

** Let me know when you have one - fuckhead.

BTW

The Matelectronics ESR meter is an total pile of shit.

.... Phil

== 10 of 16 ==
Date: Mon, Jan 24 2011 7:30 pm
From: "Phil Allison"

<stratus46@yahoo.com>

Also, your math is wrong hotshot.

** No it ain't.

Go get fucked you stupid cunt.

== 11 of 16 ==
Date: Mon, Jan 24 2011 7:44 pm
From: "Phil Allison"

"Jeff Liebermann is a total IMBECILE "
>
>>> If you have 1 volt of output swing, and an assumed function generator
>>> output impedance of 50 ohms, the short circuit current will be about
>>> 20ma. Shove that into a 0.5 ohm electrolytic cazapitor, and you'll
>>> measure maybe 10mv across the cazapitor. That's kinda hard to see.
>>
>>** What kind of POS scope do you have ???
>
>>10mV rms = 28.3 mV p-p.
>
> Read what I wrote again. I said "1 volt of output swing" which means
> 1 volt peak to peak.

** I see: "10mv across ...."

Which is what my comments are obviously about.

So you lose this one.

> Also, all the ESR test circuits I've seen use a square wave,

** My ESR test idea uses a sine wave.

So you lose this one too.

>>My scope goes down to 5mV per division - then has a 5X mag switch if
>>needed.
>
> Mine goes down to 2mv/div.

** Then 10mV rms is easy to see and measure.

So you lose this one also.

> I think the X5 or whatever magnification on your unspecified model
> scope usually refers to the horizontal sweep, not the vertical gain.

** Think again - Mr bullshitartist.

>>> Of
>>> course you could supply more than 1 volt but then you will have some
>>> problems trying to use this technique without removing the cazapitor
>>> from the PCB.
>>
>>** Utter bollocks !!!
>>
>> As your own example proves.
>
> How so?

** Cos the residual voltage on the cap under test is only 10 mV !!!!!!!!!!!

So you lose another one.

Are you DRUNK ????

>>** Just set it to max and that's it for ESR testing.
>
> Lets just say I don't like running my test equipment flat out into an
> AC short circuit (the cap under test).

** Yawnnnnnnnn........

Let me just say that you are clearly a total fuckwit.

>>> If you look carefully at the schematics supplied below, most of them
>>> put a known series resistance at the output of the generator section
>>> to the cazapitor. You could do the same thing with the function
>>> generator. 100 ohms in series with an alleged 50 ohms will not
>>> magically make the method more accurate, but it will reduce the error
>>> to a tolerable level.
>>
>>** More bollocks.
>>
>>The vast majority of electros have less than 1 ohm ESR values - so any
>>error in the calculated drive current is TINY in comparison to a 50 ohm
>>source.
>
> True, except that the variation between what's considered a good and a
> bad electrolytic is sufficiently small that source impedance makes a
> difference.

** Absolute NONSENSE !!

Another lose for you.

Are you DRUNK ???

>>The variation in ESR values between new electros of the same type is far
>>more.
>
> Huh?

** Yes.

Maker's specs say the sample to sample variation is way more than 2%.

You ridiculous, bullshitting fuckhead.

..... Phil

== 12 of 16 ==
Date: Mon, Jan 24 2011 7:47 pm
From: stratus46@yahoo.com

On Jan 24, 7:30 pm, "Phil Allison" <phi...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
> <stratu...@yahoo.com>
>
> Also, your math is wrong hotshot.
>
> **  No it ain't.
>
>   Go get fucked you stupid cunt.

Yeah, it is. 0.1uF to 100uF is 1000 times, not 100 as you wrote.

Quote from you
"** Totally insane BOLLOCKS !!!!!

A 0.1uF ceramic has an impedance of 16 ohms at 100KHz - while a
typical
100uF electro has an impedance of 0.16 ohms at 100kHz. That is 100
times
less !!!

Imbecile"

I said nothing of parallel cap values. You assumed it - incorrectly.

G²

== 13 of 16 ==
Date: Mon, Jan 24 2011 7:58 pm
From: "Phil Allison"

** Anyone who needs to check the ESR of a few electros can lash up a test
rig in seconds - all you need is a bench audio generator and a basic scope
or CRO as poms and Aussies call them.

Set the audio gen to about 100kHz (sine wave) use full level and connect
the output across the electro under test - then connect the scope probes
direct to the same cap, not the generator - this is important.

You should see a small voltage at 100kHz on the scope - say 2 to 100mV rms.

By comparison with known good electros of similar ratings, one can note the
residual voltages and determine if a given electro is OK.

If you put a 1 ohm test load on the audio gen - you can easily find the
output current and then use the voltage readings on the scope to get actual
ESR values for electros.

Tests can be done while caps are still in circuit - but be careful to make
sure they are fully discharged first !!!

.... Phil

== 14 of 16 ==
Date: Mon, Jan 24 2011 8:01 pm
From: Meat Plow

On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 14:58:37 +1100, Phil Allison wrote:

> ** Anyone who needs to check the ESR of a few electros can lash up a
> test
> rig in seconds - all you need is a bench audio generator and a basic
> scope or CRO as poms and Aussies call them.
>
> Set the audio gen to about 100kHz

My Leader audio generator doesn't do 100kHz. What 'audio generator' does?

--
Live Fast, Die Young and Leave a Pretty Corpse

== 15 of 16 ==
Date: Mon, Jan 24 2011 8:07 pm
From: "Phil Allison"

<stratus46@yahoo.com

> Also, your math is wrong hotshot.
>
> ** No it ain't.
>
> Go get fucked you stupid cunt.

> Yeah, it is. 0.1uF to 100uF is 1000 times, not 100 as you wrote.

** ROTFLMAO !!

I wrote NOTHING OF THE SORT

YOU STUPID FUCKING CUNTHEAD !!
---------------------------------------------------

> Quote from you

"** Totally insane BOLLOCKS !!!!!

A 0.1uF ceramic has an impedance of 16 ohms at 100KHz - while a
typical 100uF electro has an impedance of 0.16 ohms at 100kHz. That is 100
times less !!! Imbecile"

** 100 times less is just what it is !!!

YOU STUPID FUCKING CUNTHEAD !!
---------------------------------------------------

> I said nothing of parallel cap values.

** You stinking bloody LIAR !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

" With any ESR meter there are 'gotchas' to beware of.
Any ceramic caps in parallel with a 'lytic will mask the
true condition of the 'lytic. "

Go straight into hell you vile, waste of space.

..... Phil

== 16 of 16 ==
Date: Mon, Jan 24 2011 8:11 pm
From: "Phil Allison"

"Meat Plow"

> My Leader audio generator doesn't do 100kHz.

** Wot a piece of shit.

50kHz will do, at a pinch.

> What 'audio generator' does?

** Nearly all go to at least 100 kHz.

Many go out to 1MHz.

Function generators often go out to way more.

.... Phil

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Broken CFL
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/75850803cb529797?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Jan 24 2011 6:52 pm
From: bob urz

http://www.epa.gov/cfl/cflcleanup.html

bob

==============================================================================
TOPIC: California phasing out light bulbs...
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/3456a0537f158184?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Jan 24 2011 7:10 pm
From: bob urz

http://www.manufacturing.net/News/2011/01/Energy-California
Phasing-Out-The-Incandescent-Light-Bulb/?et_cid=1019675&
et_rid=54703278&linkid=http%3a%2f%2fwww.manufacturing.net%2fNews%2f2011%2f01%2fEnergy
-California-Phasing-Out-The-Incandescent-Light-Bulb%2f

http://x(remove)rl.in/732c

bob

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Two phases or not?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/0a29a801d6e01e9e?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Jan 24 2011 7:40 pm
From: "Michael Kennedy"

"David Nebenzahl" <nobody@but.us.chickens> wrote in message
news:4d3a3c1e$0$31597$822641b3@news.adtechcomputers.com...
> I'm posting this to try to settle an argument going on in another
> newsgroup (alt.home.repair) about phases in electrical power.
<SNIP>
And you have started another arguement here. haha..

Honestly this is a question that I have always had, and can't understand why
it isnt called 2 phase. Unless there is something to the picture I am
unaware of.

This qustion will enevetably be debated to the end of time. It is kind of
like discussing poloitcs or religion..

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Jan 24 2011 7:59 pm
From: David Nebenzahl

On 1/24/2011 7:40 PM Michael Kennedy spake thus:

> "David Nebenzahl" <nobody@but.us.chickens> wrote in message
> news:4d3a3c1e$0$31597$822641b3@news.adtechcomputers.com...
>
>> I'm posting this to try to settle an argument going on in another
>> newsgroup (alt.home.repair) about phases in electrical power.
>
> <SNIP> And you have started another arguement here. haha..
>
> Honestly this is a question that I have always had, and can't understand why
> it isnt called 2 phase. Unless there is something to the picture I am
> unaware of.
>
> This qustion will enevetably be debated to the end of time. It is kind of
> like discussing poloitcs or religion..

Well, it really shouldn't be like that. I mean, look, we're discussing a
well-known, measurable phenomenon. The output of the center-tapped
transformer can be demonstrated to supply two separate and distinct
phases. Hell, hook up two 'scopes and see what they show.

It's just that the 'lectric-heads--the lunks who install distribution
panels and such--won't let us *call* it "2-phase" for several dubious
reasons. Doesn't change the fact that it IS two-phase power. That's what
I'm getting at. I'm not trying to force anyone to change their
terminology or give up their superstitious beliefs; I know that that's
futile.

--
Comment on quaint Usenet customs, from Usenet:

To me, the *plonk...* reminds me of the old man at the public hearing
who stands to make his point, then removes his hearing aid as a sign
that he is not going to hear any rebuttals.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: PING Jeff RE: VX-5
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/8ca180bfba9ba753?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Jan 24 2011 8:11 pm
From: Meat Plow

I think the .70cm band howl is due to the PL tone
of what I listen to the most, local public safety
with a high 167.9? tone. Doesn't happen on a ham repeater with 110.9.
Haven't tried to put some pressure on the board to dampen an oscillation
between the speaker and the board yet. If i leave it on for more than 5
minutes it doesn't act up. Also the power on problem is now 3 pushes
then hold and it turns one, every time. I hold the button for 1 second
in between pushes. Also I failed to mention I did not use this radio
for maybe 6 months, during the period I only used my new FT-60. The VX-5
was nearly impossible to turn on after that. But the more it's used
the quicker it comes on.

Finally, it's hard to believe the original battery still performs like
new. Makes me wonder why some fail so quickly. Must be a quality issue.

--
Live Fast, Die Young and Leave a Pretty Corpse

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Easy ESR meter for Electros
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/915f2964a62e59af?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Jan 24 2011 8:14 pm
From: "Phil Allison"

** Anyone who needs to check the ESR of a few electros can lash up a test
rig in seconds - all you need is a bench audio generator and a basic scope
or CRO as poms and Aussies call them.

Set the audio gen to about 100kHz (sine wave) use full level and connect
the output across the electro under test - then connect the scope probes
direct to the same cap, not the generator - this is important.

You should see a small voltage at 100kHz on the scope - say 2 to 100mV rms.

By comparison with known good electros of similar ratings, one can note the
residual voltages and determine if a given electro is OK.

If you put a 1 ohm test load on the audio gen - you can easily find the
output current and then use the voltage readings on the scope to get actual
ESR values for electros.

Tests can be done while caps are still in circuit - but be careful to make
sure they are fully discharged first !!!

.... Phil

==============================================================================

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sci.electronics.repair"
group.

To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair?hl=en

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sci.electronics.repair+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/subscribe?hl=en

To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com

==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en