sci.electronics.repair@googlegroups.com

Google Groups

"pfjw@aol.com" <pfjw@aol.com>: Nov 07 07:39AM -0800 > listed link. That was posted in 2011. That link no longer exists.   > If anyone has one, please post a URL.   > Thanks   Abbotwares purchased their chassis from an outside supplier - most likely Emerson. I would simply look for any given radio with the same tube count/type as you have now, and follow that - with a grain of salt or two.   Keep in mind that after your 5th or 6th AA4/5 radio there is not much left to learn and basic repairs become automatic. At this point, I can take about any AA5 radio that has not been mechanically trashed and bring it back to life, and do an adequate alignment (without instruments) in under an hour. Yes, I will use an SG and VOM to do the final tweaking, but most of the time, surprisingly little additional adjustment is needed.   And, you could always draw out the schematic and then compare that back to what you find on-line, if you are really curious.   Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA

Adrian Caspersz <email@here.invalid>: Nov 07 04:01PM > listed link. That was posted in 2011. That link no longer exists.   > If anyone has one, please post a URL.   > Thanks   It's here ...   google "Dan Nelson Abbotwares"   http://www.greenhillsgf.com/Design/Assets/EBAY/Images/Radios/Abbotwares_Horse_Z477/23.jpg   -- Adrian C

Adrian Caspersz <email@here.invalid>: Nov 07 04:14PM On 07/11/17 16:01, Adrian Caspersz wrote:   > It's here ...   > google "Dan Nelson Abbotwares"   > http://www.greenhillsgf.com/Design/Assets/EBAY/Images/Radios/Abbotwares_Horse_Z477/23.jpg   main article and thumbnail pictures.   http://www.greenhillsgf.com/IndexOwn_Abbotwares_Horse_Z477.htm   -- Adrian C

RS Wood <rswood@is.invalid>: Nov 07 03:00PM Frank wrote:   > I say warp, but I see NO practical difference.   That's my point.   I've been discussing warp on rotors for many decades so you're never going to add anything to the equation until you begin to use logic on your own thought processes.   The first bit of logic *you* have to figure out is the difference between runout on the car and warp on the bench.   > Should warped discs be machined differently than discs with runout?   That's a crazy question, but it's a good first-time question.   You throw warped discs out. Period.   Technically, I guess, using logic, you "could" save them, I guess, but in the practical world, you will almost *never* be able to machine a warped disc because if it's really warped, you won't realistically have enough metal left to meet spec when you're done.

RS Wood <rswood@is.invalid>: Nov 07 03:00PM Vic Smith wrote:   > The only handling that concerns me is snow and rain handling.   That's logical thinking. It's like buying a Hummer so that when you do have an accident, you're more likely to be safe. At least it's logically true to your thoughts.   It's the same as if you bought a dump truck as your only vehicle because 1% of the time you need to haul soil. As long as you're logically true to your own thought process, that's fine.   Most people fall for the Marketing Bullshit so they're not logically true to their own thought processes. That's the crime.   If you're thinking logically, that's fine.   > The winter of 1978-1979 the Chicago area had 90" of snow. > I had about a 20 mile trip to work, and I never missed a day.   Again, if *that* is what matters to you, and if you think everyone in Chicago "missed a day" because they had RWD, then you're being true to yourself.   However, if anyone else got to work on those days who had RWD vehicles, then you're not being logically true again.   It's ok to think any way you want as long as you don't lie to yourself. It's the age-old advice we gave 30 years ago to people who said the same thing.   > Except when I showed up one day and nobody was there. > Drove back home, passing hundreds of cars stuck in the snow.   I'm not as dumb as you need me to be in order to believe in your "bro" science. You think I haven't heard what you just said, a billion times in the past 30 years?   The moment people start throwing "bro science" at me, I know they're just flailing for lack of any reasonable logic. Happens every time when people believe in Marketing Bullshit.   Here's some "bro science" for you...   I drove RWD in the east-coast states and I've seen in the morning cars all over the median and I've watched them smash themselves against the guardrails.   All (obviously) were driving too fast for the conditions.   The proof was that I was in a 280Z for heaven's sake, and I didn't smash into the guardrail or end up backward in the median.   So your anecdote is exactly canceled by mine (which is the age-old problem with your "bro" science anecdote).   Anyone who is forced to constantly resort to "bro science" to back up their claims is simply lying to themselves about the real issue, which is the most common thing that happens when they fall for Marketing Bullshit.   > I was driving a RWD '67 Buick Skylark. With 300 lbs of sand bags in the trunk. > That's a cheap method.   And I have a bimmer RWD that uses chains in Tahoe. No problem.   > Since 1991 I've driven FWD cars. Never had to load the trunk with anything.   Again, you're back to logic and not bro science. If for 1% of the time you don't need extra weight or chains, then that's a fine reason for having worse handling 99% of the time.   Those tradeoffs are yours to make. Just don't lie about them.   The moment you bring in "bro science", I know you're not telling yourself the truth and that you are trying to defend Marketing Bullshit.   > As long as a car handles as expected, it's a non-issue.   Logical. That's perfectly reasonable.   As long as you don't try to defend Marketing Bullshit with Bro Science, you're fine with logical people like me.   > Aside from snow, ice and rain, handling only matters to car racers and car racer wannabes. > I'm neither, so your "handling" logic is immaterial to me.   I agree vehemenetly with you that when you use logic, your decisions make perfect sense.   It's when people use "Bro Science" to back up Marketing Bullshit that bothers me, because they're just lying to themselves and to everyone when they do that. It's the age-old situation that never changes.   I have an off-color joke that is often used in such situations, which is that I have this fat ugly dumb girlfriend who keeps the bed super warm at night which is why I keep her around.   My friends ask why, and I can give them the logical answer, or I can start using "Bro Science" to defend the Marketing Bullshit.   LOGIC: I can say "she's ugly 99% of the time but warm as fire 1% of the time" and that's why I keep her.   BRO SCIENCE: What? Ugly? Fat? Dumb? No way. My girlfriend is a svelte, gorgeously cute rocket scientist, she is. Why my sister told me so herself just yesterday.   As long as you use logic to back up your decisions, and not bro science to try to back up Marketing Bullshit, then I have no problem with what you say.

RS Wood <rswood@is.invalid>: Nov 07 03:00PM Xeno wrote:   >> I owned Chrysler & Dodge, as you know.   > I never owned either of those two companies. I guess I was too poor. > What's it like to be a rich engineer company owner?   You can insult me for explaining logic to you, but anyone here who knew those cars knows what I say is a fact, where it was so *easy* to snap a lug bolt that I lost more than one before I realized they're threaded backward.   Now, you can fault me for being stupid after the first one, and I admit, it never occurred to me that lug bolts were threaded backward on *one side* of the vehicle.   But it happened, where I'm glad it did, because you want to know something? Lug bolts are *easy* to snap.   You'll never permanently bend a typical rotor on that car with lug bolts. >> As you may know, the lug bolts, in those days, were reverse threaded on one >> side of the car.   > Yes, I did know that. Never snapped one off either - even as a kid.   Then you never learned what I learned, which is that lug bolts are so easy to snap that you will never bend a rotor on that car with a lug bolt no matter how much torque you think you can apply.     >> I snapped a few before I realized it (I was just a kid at the time).   > Never snapped one off either - even as a kid.   Point is, that a rotor on that car isn't going to be bent by applying torque to a lug nut. You can avoid that logical fact all you want but it doesn't change that it's a logical fact.     > Missed the imprinted *L* on the end of the stud, did you?   Yes. I didn't even *think* that one side of the car was R and the other side of the car was L. I had cars before that, and cars after that, but only this one had reverse-threaded lug bolts and nuts - so I never tested lugbolt strength since then (which was in the sixties or maybe very early seventies as I recall).   Point is that it's so easy to snap a lug bolt on that car that you'll *never* get anywhere near the torque required to permanently bend a rotor with lug bolts no matter how much torque you apply to that car.   If you can show some *other* car has superhuman tensile strength lug bolts, then let's look at your specs.     > drum purely by overtightening the wheel nuts. Why was that? Was the > casting designed by an engineer who was thinking logically that a bolt > would snap before the drum warped. Hey, he stuffed up big time.   You don't provide enough data because we need to know a lot about the drums but we have been talking *ROTORS* all along, and not drums since we've been discussing disc brakes.   I don't doubt drums suffer from similar issues than disc brakes but the entire geometry is immensely different (as you know) and besides, what matters first and foremost is the tensile strength of the lug bolts anyway.   What's the typical torque applied to those lug bolts? What's the tensile strength of those lug bolts?   Without that basic information, we can't move forward on your drum brake example, even though we've been clearly talking disc brakes so far.   >> Doesn't anyone here think logically?   > It's looking a lot like you don't.   Classic argument which I've seen for fifty years, so it's not unexpected. Anyone faced with basic logic for the first time always *attacks* the messenger.   The good news is that you will mellow, days, months, years, and maybe decades from now such that you'll think before you start trying to defend marketing bullshit.   It happens every time. You're smart enough to learn. You won't fall into the same mudholes as you did in this thread. What you'll do is be more careful about what you say because right now you're just trying to defend your emotions.   But in another thread, years from now, you won't feel the desperate need to defend your emotions. So I think we have seen some progress with you and that's good.   I certainly learned a *lot* in this thread myself, particularly on the major factors that make an engine run longer nowadays than in the days of yore, and for that, I thank you.   You do not have to thank me for asking you to think logically though, as I understand how people defend their emotions to the last breath.

RS Wood <rswood@is.invalid>: Nov 07 03:00PM Frank wrote:     > What logic says that continually installing and removing tire chains to > get that 99% to 100% is better than being happy with the 100% without > chains?   Nothing you have said (or even can say) isn't something they said 30 years ago, so, just like with brake warp and drilled/slotted rotors, there's nothing new that you provided that wasn't already logically debunked 30 years ago.   You keep believing it, since logic clearly isn't working within you.

Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>: Nov 06 11:09PM -0800 On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 10:01:55 -0800, "David Farber"   >I opened it up and the crimps and resistors are good.   Well, so much for the easy fix.   When you inscribed: "The neon light that illuminates indicating a good ground is not lighting up anymore". Which of the 3 lamps are you referring to? <https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/81IbbdT22JL._SL1500_.jpg>   I would guess(tm) that this is what you found inside: <https://www.nachi.org/forum/attachments/f19/11495d1178925009-outlet-reading-three-prong-tester-schematic.jpg>   >what the lamp's breakdown voltage specification indicates? According to the >datasheet, the NE-2 has a breakdown voltage of 65VAC. The high brightness >bulbs have a higher breakdown voltage of 95VAC.   It's not a high brightness NE-2H or NE-2UH lamp.   Neon lamps have a V/I curve with hysteresis. They turn on at about 65VAC, and stay turned on until the voltage drops below about 50VAC (maintaining voltage). The actual voltages are not very well controlled and are affected by ambient lighting, radiation, and temperature. In between these two points, the neon lamp exhibits negative resistance, which makes a dandy relaxation oscillator or logic circuit.   Drivel: I'm reading from the "GE Glow Lamp Manual" 2nd edition 1966. GE never made an NE-2. The closest equivalent is their 3AG lamp). <http://www.introni.it/pdf/GE%20Glow%20Lamp%20Manual.pdf> (12.1MB)   -- 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

tabbypurr@gmail.com: Nov 07 03:41AM -0800 On Tuesday, 7 November 2017 07:09:20 UTC, Jeff Liebermann wrote: > "The neon light that illuminates indicating a good ground > is not lighting up anymore". > Which of the 3 lamps are you referring to?   it would have to be the L-E one.     NT

Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com>: Nov 06 04:57PM -0800 David Farber wrote:   ------------------------   > http://webpages.charter.net/mrfixiter/images/Electronics/Rickenbacker/Flakey-terminals.jpg   > http://webpages.charter.net/mrfixiter/images/Electronics/Rickenbacker/Filter-caps.jpg   > Thanks for your reply.   ** Good servicing practice requires that you FIRST observe a fault before delving inside to find the cause.   Consider that the unit may have no fault at all, the reported noises being fed in from an external device and / or are due to AC supply transients.     .... Phil

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.