sci.electronics.repair@googlegroups.com

Google Groups

cowridermi@hotmail.com: Nov 22 08:06AM -0800 I have this receiver and when I lose power, great power company, the station pre-sets are lost and the stations need to be entered again. The manual states that they are retained for up to a month. Is there a battery to replace?

"pfjw@aol.com" <pfjw@aol.com>: Nov 22 08:25AM -0800 > I have this receiver and when I lose power, great power company, the station pre-sets are lost and the stations need to be entered again. The manual states that they are retained for up to a month. Is there a battery to replace?   There will either be a battery or a capacitor for that purpose. Yes, they wear (out) and yes, replacing it should do it. If you have a schematic, you should be able to trace it, and determine what it is.   Some products, such as Revox and a couple of others, have user-replaceable batteries (AA batteries behind a little door somewhere) I am not sure if Sony ever took this expedient, but if they did it would be in the manual.   Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA

N_Cook <diverse@tcp.co.uk>: Nov 21 07:16PM >> protect a motor etc and alerts a user to a problem. > "Ball detent overload release" is one name for this type of clutch. > Eric   I'll go for that term. A similar sort of mechanism as the percussion part of a percussion drill, hence the clattering noise when triggered. In the gear train of a posket digital camera, jamming due to a silly bit of plastic anti-dirt skirt, that has aged or degraded and gets between the sliding barrel segments. So what sounds like a nasty slipped gear/broken gear tooth, is designed-in noise

tschw10117@gmail.com: Nov 22 07:59AM -0800 We used to use this type of clutch in linear actuators in some of our machines, I think we may have called them torque clutches or ratcheting clutches. The ratcheting noise proved unacceptable to customers. We developed circuitry to detect the stall current of the motor and controlled the actuator travel that way, rather than thru brute force timing.

bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net>: Nov 22 09:01AM -0500 Paper caps all replaced, and a couple out-of-tolerance cathode resistors swapped out for 1 watt carbon film. The 6F6 output stage cathode bypass electrolytic was also replaced; it wasn't in the can as specified in the schematic but was a "Dandee" brand 10uF axial lead type air-wired inside the chassis.   The paper caps were a hodge-podge of different brands - Mallory, Aerovox, Sprague, Tobe Detustchmann. The can electrolytic is an 8uF/8uF unit instead of the specified 6-6-6. Some of the paper caps weren't the correct values e.g. the 0.25uF paper cap was actually a (very large) 0.5uF unit. I'm guessing the last time this radio was serviced might have been during WW2 and perhaps wartime rationing had something to do with it - repair shop made use of whatever they had on hand.   Maybe surprisingly both sections of the can electrolytic reformed OK running a current thru it via stepping up the voltage ranges while on the "leakage" setting of my Heathkit IT-11. It took about a minute for the eye to open at the rated max voltage of 450. I measure a "power factor" of around 3-4% on both sections at that voltage. Don't know if it would be good to leave that as is but I'm using it in-place for testing.   The 5Z4 and 6F6 + power supply circuit seems to be working fine, with the set powered up the voltage on the first capacitor section and the second after the field coil choke look approximately correct. Injecting1kHz into the 6F6 grid and into the grid of the 6J7 detector I get a strong output through the speaker with no hum.   The problem now is that the plate and screen voltages on the 6A8 and 6K7 are way off; the service manual specifies 195 and 210 for plate voltages respectively but I'm actually getting more like 260 and 275. The screen voltages are specified as being 70 and 90 respectively but I'm looking at about 130 for both of them. Pin 5 of the 6A8 looks correct at about -10.5 volts. Cathode resistors and bypasses were replaced on both of them but the cathode voltages are high, e.g. with the AM broadcast band selected, volume all the way up I'm reading about 4.8 volts on the cathode of the 6A8 instead of 3.   With a 3 meter longwire antenna I'm getting one local strong AM station (50kW about 8 miles down the road) at night but the AM band is otherwise silent. I'm guessing at this point one or both of the 6A8/6K7 has poor emission? I don't own a vintage tube tester but I have both HV and low voltage bench supplies available, any suggestion on how to rig up a quick emissions test?

bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net>: Nov 22 09:02AM -0500 On 11/22/2017 09:01 AM, bitrex wrote: > emission? I don't own a vintage tube tester but I have both HV and low > voltage bench supplies available, any suggestion on how to rig up a > quick emissions test?   Schematic: <http://www.nostalgiaair.org/pagesbymodel/542/M0009542.pdf>

bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net>: Nov 22 09:04AM -0500 On 11/22/2017 09:01 AM, bitrex wrote:   > them but the cathode voltages are high, e.g. with the AM broadcast band > selected, volume all the way up I'm reading about 4.8 volts on the > cathode of the 6A8 instead of 3.   BTW I also replaced the screen resistor feeding both screen circuits as well as the screen bypass cap. No change.

"pfjw@aol.com" <pfjw@aol.com>: Nov 22 06:54AM -0800 What is your wallplate voltage?   110:195 = XXX/260 where XXX = 147 VAC. 110:210 = XXX/275 where XXX = 144 VAC. 110:3 = XXX/4.8 where XXX = 179 VAC   These results are reasonably self-consistent as what comes to a volume-control can have many variations. Note that increasing capacitance in many cases will also increase B+ and other down-line voltages, and generally *SHOULD NOT BE DONE*, especially in radios with field-coil speakers such as that one.   So, hazarding a guess at long distance, you have a combination of high wallplate voltage, excessive capacitance and measurement variance.     This voltage of 14X seems extreme, but given that these sets were measured with VTVMs back in the day, and VTVMs load very differently than a modern VOM. And the vintage unit was not "true RMS" and so could measure low. Do you have an old analog meter? Or, perhaps a VTVM?   I have long-since learned to distrust factory-schematic voltages. Generally. I will bring a radio up to 110V on the Variac and measure secondary voltages off the transformer (unloaded, then loaded) to see what is what. If I get consistent discrepancies, I attribute it to measurement variances. If I get inconsistent discrepancies - more than 15% apart - I will look for a bad transformer winding or some other problem of that nature.   Did you replace the line-filter cap on the line-cord? Do so with a type Y safety capacitor. That will help on reception.   I have no idea where you are, but if you are anywhere near southeastern PA, USA, I would be glad to test your tubes. I keep both a little Simpson emissions tester and a Hickok 539B for the heavy-duty stuff.   Otherwise, try swapping tubes with another radio. 6A8s are notoriously prone to failure, and glass ones are getting quite scarce. More so than even a 1L6 in my experience.   Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA

bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net>: Nov 22 10:22AM -0500 > 110:210 = XXX/275 where XXX = 144 VAC. > 110:3 = XXX/4.8 where XXX = 179 VAC   > These results are reasonably self-consistent as what comes to a volume-control can have many variations. Note that increasing capacitance in many cases will also increase B+ and other down-line voltages, and generally *SHOULD NOT BE DONE*, especially in radios with field-coil speakers such as that one.   Using my DMM on the "AC" setting, out of the wall it's reading 124 VAC.     > I have long-since learned to distrust factory-schematic voltages. Generally. I will bring a radio up to 110V on the Variac and measure secondary voltages off the transformer (unloaded, then loaded) to see what is what. If I get consistent discrepancies, I attribute it to measurement variances. If I get inconsistent discrepancies - more than 15% apart - I will look for a bad transformer winding or some other problem of that nature.   > Did you replace the line-filter cap on the line-cord? Do so with a type Y safety capacitor. That will help on reception.   > I have no idea where you are, but if you are anywhere near southeastern PA, USA, I would be glad to test your tubes. I keep both a little Simpson emissions tester and a Hickok 539B for the heavy-duty stuff.   Thanks for the offer! I'm currently in Providence, RI most of the time so a little far, unfortunately...:(   > Otherwise, try swapping tubes with another radio. 6A8s are notoriously prone to failure, and glass ones are getting quite scarce. More so than even a 1L6 in my experience.   > Peter Wieck > Melrose Park, PA   Will do. Yeah, gosh, NOS 6A8Gs are expensive! The schematic specifies either the metal or "G" shape enclosure, I guess the GT doesn't have the correct pinout? In any case, all the tubes currently fitted in the set are the metal enclosure type.

bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net>: Nov 22 10:35AM -0500 > 110:210 = XXX/275 where XXX = 144 VAC. > 110:3 = XXX/4.8 where XXX = 179 VAC   > These results are reasonably self-consistent as what comes to a volume-control can have many variations. Note that increasing capacitance in many cases will also increase B+ and other down-line voltages, and generally *SHOULD NOT BE DONE*, especially in radios with field-coil speakers such as that one.   Seems extreme for a 6uF - 8uF swap, but I'm not experienced enough with tube PSUs to know for sure. Weird that the cathode resistor voltage is too high, I'd think that if emission were the problem it would be too low. There's definitely not enough voltage drop across the screen resistor. I'm going to measure every voltage on every pin again and post it to make sure I haven't bungled a measurement, somewhere.   > So, hazarding a guess at long distance, you have a combination of high wallplate voltage, excessive capacitance and measurement variance.   > This voltage of 14X seems extreme, but given that these sets were measured with VTVMs back in the day, and VTVMs load very differently than a modern VOM. And the vintage unit was not "true RMS" and so could measure low. Do you have an old analog meter? Or, perhaps a VTVM?   Unfortunately not, all my meters are DMMs. Unlike a tube tester that's probably a tool I can get my hands on readily though   > I have long-since learned to distrust factory-schematic voltages. Generally. I will bring a radio up to 110V on the Variac and measure secondary voltages off the transformer (unloaded, then loaded) to see what is what. If I get consistent discrepancies, I attribute it to measurement variances. If I get inconsistent discrepancies - more than 15% apart - I will look for a bad transformer winding or some other problem of that nature.   > Did you replace the line-filter cap on the line-cord? Do so with a type Y safety capacitor. That will help on reception.   Ok, will do, it's currently just a 630V regular film type.

"pfjw@aol.com" <pfjw@aol.com>: Nov 22 07:58AM -0800 On Wednesday, November 22, 2017 at 10:22:52 AM UTC-5, bitrex wrote:   > either the metal or "G" shape enclosure, I guess the GT doesn't have the > correct pinout? In any case, all the tubes currently fitted in the set > are the metal enclosure type.   The GT is fine, but it is a short tube and often the grid-cap lead will not reach the top of the tube over the shield - required for a glass-type tube. If you have no shield, stick with the metal tubes. \   It may also need an alignment, by the way. Are you equipped to do that? It is certainly simple enough - with the right tools.   Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA

harry newton <harry@is.invalid>: Nov 21 10:40PM He who is harry newton said on Tue, 21 Nov 2017 22:32:53 +-0000 (UTC):   > Google admits it tracked user location data even when the setting was > turned off. It did so via cell tower data. > <https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/21/16684818/google-location-tracking-cell-tower-data-android-os-firebase-privacy>   Does anyone know more about disabling "Firebase Cloud Messaging" services? For example, what if you're on Android 4.3 (like I am) with all location services disabled?   Here's another article...   Google collects Android users+IBk- locations even when location services are disabled   <https://qz.com/1131515/google-collects-android-users-locations-even-when-location-services-are-disabled/> Since the beginning of 2017, Android phones have been collecting the addresses of nearby cellular towers+IBQ-even when location services are disabled+IBQ-and sending that data back to Google.   Google was apparently collecting cell tower data from all modern Android devices before being contacted by Quartz. A source familiar with the matter said the cell tower addresses were being sent to Google after a change in early 2017 to the Firebase Cloud Messaging service, which is owned by Google and runs on Android phones by default.   Devices with a cellular data or WiFi connection appear to send the data to Google each time they come within range of a new cell tower. When Android devices are connected to a WiFi network, they will send the tower addresses to Google even if they don+IBk-t have SIM cards installed.   Android devices never offered consumers a way to opt out of the collection of cell tower data.

harry newton <harry@is.invalid>: Nov 21 11:48PM He who is nospam said on Tue, 21 Nov 2017 17:55:51 -0500:     > many people told you that you were still being tracked, but you blindly > dismissed it.   > now you know.   You would love that to be the case, but, you're jumping to conclusions out of confirmation bias (i.e., you *wish* it were true).   I looked and I don't think it's the case for me since I don't see (yet) anything called "Firebase Cloud Messaging" on my Android 4.3 phone.   Time will tell which phones were affected, but this is a good one for Google to get sued on, as it certainly will take some 'splaining why they captured unique cell tower IDs when Location Services were disabled.   All we know, so far, is that it started in January of this year, and that it used "Firebase Cloud Messaging" services - whatever that is. I googled it, and I don't think it's even on my phone - but it's too early to tell just yet what's going on.   Google apparently immediately said they'd terminate the practice of capturing cell tower unique IDs - so, it doesn't appear to be something they sanctioned (because they wouldn't likely have agreed to terminate the practice so quickly if they had their legal ducks already lined up).   Time will tell which devices are affected - but I don't even see the app on my phone - which is rooted - so I can delete it - if I can find it - but it doesn't seem to exist.   To other android users: Q: Do you see a process for "Firebase Cloud Messaging" services?

Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>: Nov 21 07:26PM -0800 On Tue, 21 Nov 2017 23:48:55 +0000 (UTC), harry newton   >To other android users: > Q: Do you see a process for "Firebase Cloud Messaging" services?   It's not an app. It's service: <https://firebase.google.com/docs/cloud-messaging/> <https://firebase.google.com/products/cloud-messaging/> You download the API and link it into your application. It runs on a variety of platforms including Apple IOS.   More: <https://www.google.com/search?q=Firebase+Cloud+Messaging>   -- 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

harry newton <harry@is.invalid>: Nov 22 03:36AM He who is Jeff Liebermann said on Tue, 21 Nov 2017 19:26:10 -0800:   > variety of platforms including Apple IOS.   > More: > <https://www.google.com/search?q=Firebase+Cloud+Messaging>   It's still early on since the news came out today, but it behooves us to figure out then which apps incorporated the Firebase service.   BTW, I think this recent "mashable" article is dead wrong in that they minimize the outrage by saying the unique cell tower ID was encrypted and discarded.   "Nope, your Android phone's not secretly tracking your location when you tell it not to" <http://mashable.com/2017/11/21/google-android-location-tracking-services-turned-off/>   The mere fact the cell tower ID was *transmitted* to Google servers is the breach of trust, IMHO.

rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com>: Nov 21 11:53PM -0500 harry newton wrote on 11/21/2017 6:48 PM: > capturing cell tower unique IDs - so, it doesn't appear to be something > they sanctioned (because they wouldn't likely have agreed to terminate the > practice so quickly if they had their legal ducks already lined up).   You would love for that to be the case, but you're jumping to conclusions out of confirmation bias (i.e., you *wish* it were true).   There are the legal issues involved, but just as important if not more important is the public image perception.   --   Rick C   Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms, on the centerline of totality since 1998

harry newton <harry@is.invalid>: Nov 22 05:05AM He who is rickman said on Tue, 21 Nov 2017 23:53:06 -0500:   > You would love for that to be the case, but you're jumping to conclusions > out of confirmation bias (i.e., you *wish* it were true).   I'm the one *reporting* the issue here, not you, for heaven's sake. I'm the one intimating Google can get *sued* for this, perhaps. I'm the one asking for more information, for heaven's sake. I'm the one who said Mashable errantly minimized the danger.   Not you. Not nospam. Me.   All I'm saying are facts. All you've said, is nothing of value.   I'm asking others to look on their phones for these reputed "Firebase Cloud Messaging" services.   My phone is jailbroken where I can delete anything I want, where I *looked* for anything on the phone remotely resembling a "Firebase Cloud Messaging" service. I have plenty of root-only apps which seek out such things, but I haven't seen it yet.   Admittedly, my phone is ancient, where the articles specifically mentioned only the newer Android phones were updated in January of this year to send the unique cell tower ID to Google servers.   So I'm the one asking *you* (and everyone here) what *they* have on their phone that resembles "Firebase Cloud Messaging" services running.   Where's the value YOU added?

rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com>: Nov 22 12:32AM -0500 harry newton wrote on 11/22/2017 12:05 AM: > I'm the one who said Mashable errantly minimized the danger.   > Not you. Not nospam. Me.   > All I'm saying are facts.   And speculation... "it doesn't appear to be something they sanctioned (because they wouldn't likely have agreed to terminate the practice so quickly if they had their legal ducks already lined up)."     > All you've said, is nothing of value.   I think there is value in distinguishing between the facts and your speculation.     > So I'm the one asking *you* (and everyone here) what *they* have on their > phone that resembles "Firebase Cloud Messaging" services running.   Which has nothing to do with reporting facts.     > Where's the value YOU added?   Pointing out your speculation which is *not* fact.   --   Rick C   Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms, on the centerline of totality since 1998

harry newton <harry@is.invalid>: Nov 22 05:40AM He who is Jeff Liebermann said on Tue, 21 Nov 2017 19:26:10 -0800:   > It's not an app. It's service:   Do you know how to tell, definitively, if any given phone is running this compromised service?   I don't see it running when I look using these instructions: <https://www.howtogeek.com/258300/how-to-access-androids-list-of-running-apps-in-6.0-marshmallow-and-above/>   However, it could be running *inside* an app that linked to the API.   When I check it with adb, I get the following error: $ adb shell service list error: device not found   I can check with "ps" though: $ ps | grep -i service Returns about a dozen services such as: org.simalliance.openmobileapi.service:remote samsung.clipboardsaveservice com.sec.android.inputmethod:ACService etc. But: $ ps | grep -i firebase Returns nothing   At this point, I see no evidence (yet anyway) of firebase services on my Android 4.3 phone. Do you?

harry newton <harry@is.invalid>: Nov 22 05:42AM He who is rickman said on Wed, 22 Nov 2017 00:32:39 -0500: >> Where's the value YOU added?   > Pointing out your speculation which is *not* fact.   Fair enough.   Do you know how to tell, definitively, if any given phone is running this compromised service?   I don't see it running when I look using these instructions: <https://www.howtogeek.com/258300/how-to-access-androids-list-of-running-apps-in-6.0-marshmallow-and-above/>   However, it could be running *inside* an app that linked to the API.   When I check it with adb, I get the following error: $ adb shell service list error: device not found   I can check with "ps" though: $ ps | grep -i service Returns about a dozen services such as: org.simalliance.openmobileapi.service:remote samsung.clipboardsaveservice com.sec.android.inputmethod:ACService etc. But: $ ps | grep -i firebase Returns nothing   At this point, I see no evidence (yet anyway) of firebase services on my Android 4.3 phone. Do you see evidence of it running on yours?

bruce2bowser@gmail.com: Nov 22 05:09AM -0800 On Tuesday, November 21, 2017 12:40AM, harry newton wrote:   >Do you know how to tell, definitively, if any given phone is running this >compromised service?   >I don't see it running when I look using these instructions: <https://www.howtogeek.com/258300/how-to-access-androids-list-of-running-apps-in-6.0-marshmallow-and-above/>   >However, it could be running *inside* an app that linked to the API   And at what point are you to assume that additional hidden in-house billing or update-service programming (that can't be turned-off) automatically reveals a phone's location at an un-announced time?

"pfjw@aol.com" <pfjw@aol.com>: Nov 22 05:57AM -0800 For What It's Worth   Buffalo Springfield (1967)   There's something happening here What it is ain't exactly clear There's a man with a gun over there Telling me I got to beware   I think it's time we stop, children, what's that sound Everybody look what's going down   There's battle lines being drawn Nobody's right if everybody's wrong Young people speaking their minds Getting so much resistance from behind   It's time we stop, hey, what's that sound Everybody look what's going down   What a field-day for the heat A thousand people in the street Singing songs and carrying signs Mostly say, hooray for our side   It's s time we stop, hey, what's that sound Everybody look what's going down   Paranoia strikes deep Into your life it will creep It starts when you're always afraid You step out of line, the man come and take you away   We better stop, hey, what's that sound Everybody look what's going down Stop, hey, what's that sound Everybody look what's going down Stop, now, what's that sound Everybody look what's going down Stop, children, what's that sound Everybody look what's going down   Not much has changed.   Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA

jurb6006@gmail.com: Nov 21 09:14PM -0800 What kind of failures ? Heat pumps get bad reversing valves, compressors get bad valves period. If it is not installed properly that happens alot more. At best, before the system is filled, flushed and sealed it should be on a vacuum pump overnight.   If your problems are electrical that is much easier to deal with. Also, don't brush and disturb those evaporator and condenser coils. If they clog up you either need filters or something to keep the gunk out, but if you have to clean them use compressed air.

RickiRick <RickiRick.145ae8e8@diybanter.com>: Nov 22 08:14AM > don't brush and disturb those evaporator and condenser coils. If they > clog up you either need filters or something to keep the gunk out, but > if you have to clean them use compressed air.   The problem is with clogged ac condensate drain. I know, it happens. But by me ir happens incredibly often         -- RickiRick

tabbypurr@gmail.com: Nov 22 03:49AM -0800 On Wednesday, 22 November 2017 08:17:49 UTC, RickiRick wrote: > > if you have to clean them use compressed air.   > The problem is with clogged ac condensate drain. I know, it happens. But > by me ir happens incredibly often   I've had that with fridges, and solved it by putting copper wire down the drain tube & leaving it in place. It inhibits mould, and is easily wiggled to clear any blockage.     NT

You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to sci.electronics.repair+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.