Date   

Re: 7633 came today. Appears to be no HV

Brendan
 

Ok... Broken fuse on the regulator board. CRT is now on. I have readout but no trace.


7633 came today. Appears to be no HV

Brendan
 

I have no HV probe but I discharged the CRT to the frame and, nothing. This scope is 100% cleaner and looks much less molested than my other 7633. I have never had to troubleshoot the HV section. What would you guys do? Troubleshoot this scope and fix it or use it as a parts scope for the already working 7633?


Re: TCP202 current probe

 

I assume you have the correct termination for the TCP202 ?
HankC, Boston, WA1HOS


Re: Tek 2210 Help needed

tom jobe <tomjobe@...>
 

Hi Walter,
A little 22xx trivia for you...
I looked at the Tektronix sales catalogs from 1989, 1990 and 1993 and they show the 2210, 2211 and 2212 as being for sale (2210 in the 1989 catalog, the 2211 in the 1990 catalog, and so on).
When I was putting my 2210 away today I noticed the front cover looked identical to the front cover on other common 22xx's such as the 2235, but it had two little notches cut into the bottom edge to clear the two little front feet they added to the bottom of the plastic front panel of the 2210. (some photos I found on-line of the 2211 and 2212 appear to also have these same two feet added to the bottom edge of their front panels)
I tried the 2210 cover on an ordinary 2235 and it fit perfectly, and the lower edge of the 2235 front panel sealed off the 2210 cover notches so it did the same job as a real 2235 front cover with no notches.
tom jobe...

On 3/11/2018 3:04 PM, walter shawlee wrote:
Any kind of manual for this would be welcome, I can't find one.
It seems to be working well except for one odd thing, when I press Sore/Non-store,
the traces jump one division up. in addition, inverting ch. 2 causes a half div shift.
is this a DC balance issue, or normal? hard to know what to look at or adjust
with no manual. nice lower end digital/analog scope, and the reference trace feature is
quite good..

all help welcome,
walter (walter2 -at- sphere.bc.ca)
sphere research corp.


.


Re: Tek 7623A (or 7000 series in general) - Poor man's choice to Signal Standardizer

Harvey White
 

On Tue, 13 Mar 2018 15:27:33 -0700, you wrote:

Thanks Harvey,
My comments after yours (I suppressed my originals).
Rgrds,
Fabio

On Tue, 13 Mar 2018 12:34:46 -0700, you wrote:
I'd consider the following for this:
1) anything you can measure with a decent DMM is going to be far more
accurate than the eyeball can see on a trace and a grid. Unless you
have the 7D12, you don't have to worry all that much.
I fully agree, I failed to emphasize that on the Vertical dept. I'm more worried about AC and Step response. DC wise you're absolutely right that I can just compare the measurements with a DMM.
I have a PG506 that does well. For the PG506, you set an internal
switch to turn off the square wave output, and then check the
calibration voltages with a good DMM.

Other than risetime checks, that's about it.


Tek apparently feels that if you have the
DC down right, the AC will follow.




2) I'd consider a rail to rail op-amp that will run the right
voltages, then feed it with a decent square wave. If you needed less
than 15 volts p-p, you can feed a pair of CMOS gates (don't exceed the
limits for the power supply).
Two ways to do that, one is to have a "calibrated" variable power
supply for the +, and one for the -, connect the gate across those,
and level shift a decent squarewave. Another is to use a 10 volt
reference, run it through two op-amps to get + and - 10 volts, and
then much the same. I like the first one, myself.
Clear... It may worth to implement as I will be building something anyway... though all this will serve more the DC and linearity I think.
The standardizer plugins provide a stairstep waveform that allows you
to check linearity, as well as a leveled AC output (within a frequency
limit) that allows you to pretend that you have an SG502/3/4 when you
don't.


Something else to consider: The use for a signal standardizer is only
really valid when you want to have plugins moving from mainframe to
mainframe.
If you have one, then the combination of plugin gain and mainframe
gain is the only thing significant. You take a standard, and adjust
the plugin so that the measurement says, say, 10 volts. Then you
adjust all the other plugins to that.
If you can't, then you're off somewhere, and need to readjust the
mainframe gain in combination with the other plugins.
It *is* a lot easier with a standardizer, though.
However, with only one mainframe (if that's where you are), it really
doesn't make a difference.
You have a point there and indeed, I don't see myself having another 7xxx anytime soon or having any other Tek fan nearby with whom I could be swapping plug-ins.
Surely, I intend to have one or two additional vert Plug-ins (a 7A22 and, if luck smiles at me, another 7A26) but
the 7A22 should not pose problems to AC calibrate it, because at 1MHz, step response is not hard to come by and the - yet to exist - 2nd 7A26, I would need to calibrate it to match my 1st 7A26, much more than pursuing both to be "standard".
1.0 volts in is 1.0 volts in for everything. Works for me.


Well, DMMs are your friends.
Indeed. I`m counting on it for the DC accuracy.

2. Is it valid to think of my 2nd 7B53A "Ampl." function as a decent
"vanilla" pre-amp, feed it with a good pulse generator, take for granted
there's very little to be wrong in the TB's pre-amp and, therefore, consider
it a good "standard" to calibrate the MF's vertical?
I'm not sure that I'd like that idea.
I wasn't sure either (reason I asked), but now that you made me think that achieving good overall results may be more important (in my case of a stand-alone set), you know it may be a good idea?
Consider that a vertical plug-in has a lot of adjustments inside (that are more or less redundant with the MF's and -to some extent - can compensate for any MF's lack or excess in some department) and that the "Ampl" input signal path of the 7B53A has almost no adjustment...
Firstly, there's DC responses, setting the gain factors, then there's
the AC response, both pulse and frequency.

I think that most adjust for best pulse response, considering how most
oscilloscopes are used.

Then, If I can get the MF to display the best square wave possible using the TB's "Ampl" input, and then adjust the Vertical Plug-in to match whatever the MF will end-up (as long as I have range, of course), will eventually make the best possible adjustment for the set I have at hand? Or not?
The squarewave is at a low enough frequency that the pulse response
doesn't generally matter. That or you could do DC gain. Then I'd
worry about AC response (much more complicated thing).


3. Is it a good idea to "tap" onto the output of the plugin (or conversely
the input of the MF), right at the MF's edge connector? On this same concept,
is it valid to look only at one side of the differential input signal?
An extender can save a lot of time and trouble.
and I'd be happier looking at the differential of the two inputs,
since that's what the scope is paying attention to.
You must be right in that, I don't believe I can rely on anything that I may be able to see single-endedly, specially in talking about step response.
Sounds good.

Harvey





Re: Wanted: Front cover for 2235 AN/USM Part No: 200-2520-00

tom jobe <tomjobe@...>
 

The front cover that fits all (or most?) of these scopes are often for sale on eBay.
I just looked on eBay and only saw one of that exact model you are looking for on there, but it had multiple cracks in it that looked like someone had tried to fix, so I doubt you would want that one as it is usually easy to find a nice one.
There is also one for a 2230 on eBay today which is the same front cover you are looking for, but with an instruction sticker on the inside and a different part number.
Be careful about which one you buy, as similar front covers are often listed as being for Tek 2200 series scopes but are actually for other models such as the 2246 which is a much different scope and cover.
tom jobe...

On 3/13/2018 11:29 AM, noka@comcast.net wrote:
Cover would also fit: 2213, 2215, 2213A, 2215A, 2235, 2235A, 2236, 2220, 2221, 2221A, 2230, 2232, 2224.
Please contact me if you have one with price/shipping to 01922 (MA).



Re: Tek 7623A (or 7000 series in general) - Poor man's choice to Signal Standardizer

Dave Daniel
 

Fabio,

On 3/13/2018 4:27 PM, Fabio Trevisan wrote:
[snip]
... I don't see myself having another 7xxx anytime soon or having any other Tek fan nearby with whom I could be swapping plug-ins.
/[Snip]

Be afraid. Be very afraid. I said that once, too.

:)

DaveD


Re: Tek 7623A (or 7000 series in general) - Poor man's choice to Signal Standardizer

Fabio Trevisan
 

Thanks Harvey,
My comments after yours (I suppressed my originals).
Rgrds,
Fabio

On Tue, 13 Mar 2018 12:34:46 -0700, you wrote:
I'd consider the following for this:
1) anything you can measure with a decent DMM is going to be far more
accurate than the eyeball can see on a trace and a grid. Unless you
have the 7D12, you don't have to worry all that much.
I fully agree, I failed to emphasize that on the Vertical dept. I'm more worried about AC and Step response. DC wise you're absolutely right that I can just compare the measurements with a DMM.

2) I'd consider a rail to rail op-amp that will run the right
voltages, then feed it with a decent square wave. If you needed less
than 15 volts p-p, you can feed a pair of CMOS gates (don't exceed the
limits for the power supply).
Two ways to do that, one is to have a "calibrated" variable power
supply for the +, and one for the -, connect the gate across those,
and level shift a decent squarewave. Another is to use a 10 volt
reference, run it through two op-amps to get + and - 10 volts, and
then much the same. I like the first one, myself.
Clear... It may worth to implement as I will be building something anyway... though all this will serve more the DC and linearity I think.

Something else to consider: The use for a signal standardizer is only
really valid when you want to have plugins moving from mainframe to
mainframe.
If you have one, then the combination of plugin gain and mainframe
gain is the only thing significant. You take a standard, and adjust
the plugin so that the measurement says, say, 10 volts. Then you
adjust all the other plugins to that.
If you can't, then you're off somewhere, and need to readjust the
mainframe gain in combination with the other plugins.
It *is* a lot easier with a standardizer, though.
However, with only one mainframe (if that's where you are), it really
doesn't make a difference.
You have a point there and indeed, I don't see myself having another 7xxx anytime soon or having any other Tek fan nearby with whom I could be swapping plug-ins.
Surely, I intend to have one or two additional vert Plug-ins (a 7A22 and, if luck smiles at me, another 7A26) but
the 7A22 should not pose problems to AC calibrate it, because at 1MHz, step response is not hard to come by and the - yet to exist - 2nd 7A26, I would need to calibrate it to match my 1st 7A26, much more than pursuing both to be "standard".

Well, DMMs are your friends.
Indeed. I`m counting on it for the DC accuracy.

2. Is it valid to think of my 2nd 7B53A "Ampl." function as a decent
"vanilla" pre-amp, feed it with a good pulse generator, take for granted
there's very little to be wrong in the TB's pre-amp and, therefore, consider
it a good "standard" to calibrate the MF's vertical?
I'm not sure that I'd like that idea.
I wasn't sure either (reason I asked), but now that you made me think that achieving good overall results may be more important (in my case of a stand-alone set), you know it may be a good idea?
Consider that a vertical plug-in has a lot of adjustments inside (that are more or less redundant with the MF's and -to some extent - can compensate for any MF's lack or excess in some department) and that the "Ampl" input signal path of the 7B53A has almost no adjustment...
Then, If I can get the MF to display the best square wave possible using the TB's "Ampl" input, and then adjust the Vertical Plug-in to match whatever the MF will end-up (as long as I have range, of course), will eventually make the best possible adjustment for the set I have at hand? Or not?

3. Is it a good idea to "tap" onto the output of the plugin (or conversely
the input of the MF), right at the MF's edge connector? On this same concept,
is it valid to look only at one side of the differential input signal?
An extender can save a lot of time and trouble.
and I'd be happier looking at the differential of the two inputs,
since that's what the scope is paying attention to.
You must be right in that, I don't believe I can rely on anything that I may be able to see single-endedly, specially in talking about step response.


Re: Tek 7623A (or 7000 series in general) - Poor man's choice to Signal Standardizer

Harvey White
 

On Tue, 13 Mar 2018 12:34:46 -0700, you wrote:

Hello dear Tekkies (I liked this intro from someone earlier this week!).
So now I have this nice 7623A that seems to be in good shape and now starting to wonder what will I need to put together to calibrate it (don't intend to have a certificate, but I want it cal'd for sure).
The horizontal axis isn't pretty much of a concern to me, firstly because it came with 2 time bases and they both agree quite accurately between each other, second because I tend to consider it less troublesome to calibrate.
Now, for the vertical axis, I found myself caught with my pants down! I`m sure the most experienced of you can tell what is it right ahead... Signal Standardizer!
Which takes me to my question (and possible suggestions).
1. What's the easiest and cheapest alternative to a "Signal Standardizer"? is there any small-circuit already known or used, to produce a balanced square wave, with fast edges and clean tops, that I can hook directly to the differential inputs of the MF?
I'd consider the following for this:

1) anything you can measure with a decent DMM is going to be far more
accurate than the eyeball can see on a trace and a grid. Unless you
have the 7D12, you don't have to worry all that much.

2) I'd consider a rail to rail op-amp that will run the right
voltages, then feed it with a decent square wave. If you needed less
than 15 volts p-p, you can feed a pair of CMOS gates (don't exceed the
limits for the power supply).

Two ways to do that, one is to have a "calibrated" variable power
supply for the +, and one for the -, connect the gate across those,
and level shift a decent squarewave. Another is to use a 10 volt
reference, run it through two op-amps to get + and - 10 volts, and
then much the same. I like the first one, myself.

Something else to consider: The use for a signal standardizer is only
really valid when you want to have plugins moving from mainframe to
mainframe.

If you have one, then the combination of plugin gain and mainframe
gain is the only thing significant. You take a standard, and adjust
the plugin so that the measurement says, say, 10 volts. Then you
adjust all the other plugins to that.

If you can't, then you're off somewhere, and need to readjust the
mainframe gain in combination with the other plugins.

It *is* a lot easier with a standardizer, though.

However, with only one mainframe (if that's where you are), it really
doesn't make a difference.


P.S. Here, I want to avoid the loophole of procuring a Signal Standardizer (that I would need to know if it's calibrated ), or build a circuit that requires adjustments.
Well, DMMs are your friends.


2. Is it valid to think of my 2nd 7B53A "Ampl." function as a decent "vanilla" pre-amp, feed it with a good pulse generator, take for granted there's very little to be wrong in the TB's pre-amp and, therefore, consider it a good "standard" to calibrate the MF's vertical?
I'm not sure that I'd like that idea.

3. Is it a good idea to "tap" onto the output of the plugin (or conversely the input of the MF), right at the MF's edge connector? On this same concept, is it valid to look only at one side of the differential input signal?
An extender can save a lot of time and trouble.

and I'd be happier looking at the differential of the two inputs,
since that's what the scope is paying attention to.


Harvey

Thanks in advance for your thoughts.
Rgrds,
Fabio



Tek 7623A (or 7000 series in general) - Poor man's choice to Signal Standardizer

Fabio Trevisan
 

Hello dear Tekkies (I liked this intro from someone earlier this week!).
So now I have this nice 7623A that seems to be in good shape and now starting to wonder what will I need to put together to calibrate it (don't intend to have a certificate, but I want it cal'd for sure).
The horizontal axis isn't pretty much of a concern to me, firstly because it came with 2 time bases and they both agree quite accurately between each other, second because I tend to consider it less troublesome to calibrate.
Now, for the vertical axis, I found myself caught with my pants down! I`m sure the most experienced of you can tell what is it right ahead... Signal Standardizer!
Which takes me to my question (and possible suggestions).
1. What's the easiest and cheapest alternative to a "Signal Standardizer"? is there any small-circuit already known or used, to produce a balanced square wave, with fast edges and clean tops, that I can hook directly to the differential inputs of the MF?
P.S. Here, I want to avoid the loophole of procuring a Signal Standardizer (that I would need to know if it's calibrated ), or build a circuit that requires adjustments.
2. Is it valid to think of my 2nd 7B53A "Ampl." function as a decent "vanilla" pre-amp, feed it with a good pulse generator, take for granted there's very little to be wrong in the TB's pre-amp and, therefore, consider it a good "standard" to calibrate the MF's vertical?
3. Is it a good idea to "tap" onto the output of the plugin (or conversely the input of the MF), right at the MF's edge connector? On this same concept, is it valid to look only at one side of the differential input signal?
Thanks in advance for your thoughts.
Rgrds,
Fabio


Wanted: Front cover for 2235 AN/USM-488 part No: 200-2520-00

Norm - KC1BMD
 

Cover would also fit: 2213, 2215, 2213A, 2215A, 2235, 2235A, 2236, 2220, 2221, 2221A, 2230, 2232, 2224.
Please contact me if you have one with price/shipping to 01922 (MA).


Re: TCP202 current probe

@Arcticgeek
 

A couple things you might want to try if you haven't already:

1. Have you tried adjusting the DC offset trimmer that is inside the TCP202 probe body?
2. Have you tried a different channel on your scope? Sometimes moving the probe from one channel to the next can make a difference.

Worth a try, good luck!


Re: Question On 7000 Type Units

 

"It the high voltage increases, the beam will get harder to deflect"

Yup, and the opposite happens if it decreases. I think those BDRs are as likely to arc as they are to open up and arc across the open circuit part of them.

Am I wrong ?


Re: OT (sorry)

Brendan
 

I'm going to take your advise and stay away. My budget does not permit too many mistakes. Thank you all for your help.


Re: Tektronix 2465 capacitors etc. - Going deeper!

 

Yes, but for those of us who receive the posts by email rather than viewing them online we get your original post as an email plus another email for EACH edit that you make, so unless the error is critical, it's probably best to leave it without making a correction.

David

-----Original Message-----
From: TekScopes@groups.io [mailto:TekScopes@groups.io] On Behalf Of M Yachad
Sent: 12 March 2018 21:28
To: TekScopes@groups.io
Subject: Re: [TekScopes] Tektronix 2465 capacitors etc. - Going deeper!

Ed

Firstly, thank you for that clarification, that the voltage across C1130 does NOT alternate.

Secondly, (unlike a posting in Yahoo groups) in these postings, we CAN go back and edit our text, if necessary.
Under the posting, there is a "More" option, with an "Edit" sub- option.

Menahem


Re: OT (sorry)

Artekmedia <manuals@...>
 

According to the manual(s)  ( I have no personal experience working on this unit)  E52 error is most likely U401 Shaper IC is unable to supply negative output . U401 is listed as a custom HP IC IDC7 hp part number 1826-0923. U401 is further implicated if you are not getting Error E51. The block diagram of U401 would seem to point to the IC itself ( very busy little boy inside).  Could be the -15V rail too I suppose but I would expect other errors as well if that is off ??

As one poster noted better to take this over to the HP_Agilent_Group to find a real expert

_DC
manuals@artekmanuals.com

On 3/12/2018 10:15 PM, lop pol via Groups.Io wrote:
Im looking on evil bay at a hp8116A function generator. The one I'm looking at is displaying an e52. I have looked all over for error codes and am not able to find anything. The manual from agilent tells me to look at section 10 but the manual ends at 9-27. I was hoping someone here has that function generator and the manual?


--
Dave
Manuals@ArtekManuals.com
www.ArtekManuals.com


Re: OT (sorry)

 

There are a couple on ebay for less and that seem to be working. This unit has a few hard to find IC's that might be the issue with the one with the self test error. I would stay away myself unless he would take $50 or less. But that is me.


Regards

-----Original Message-----
From: lop pol via Groups.Io <the_infinite_penguin=yahoo.com@groups.io>
To: TekScopes <TekScopes@groups.io>
Sent: Mon, Mar 12, 2018 11:58 pm
Subject: Re: [TekScopes] OT (sorry)

The seller wants $175 I don't know if its worth the risk.


Re: OT (sorry)

Brendan
 

The seller wants $175 I don't know if its worth the risk.


Re: OT (sorry)

 

I have one.

1) get yourself a good copy of the service manual from Artekmanuals.com

http://artekmanuals.com/manuals/hp-manuals/

2) Check all power supply rails for level and ripple.

3) There is a memory battery - check it and change it.

4) The error e-52 is Shaper IC 401 not able to supply negative output when...
see service blocks 5,6,7.

This may be a power supply issue if you are lucky.


HTH,
Tom

-----Original Message-----
From: lop pol via Groups.Io <the_infinite_penguin=yahoo.com@groups.io>
To: TekScopes <TekScopes@groups.io>
Sent: Mon, Mar 12, 2018 10:15 pm
Subject: [TekScopes] OT (sorry)

Im looking on evil bay at a hp8116A function generator. The one I'm looking at is displaying an e52. I have looked all over for error codes and am not able to find anything. The manual from agilent tells me to look at section 10 but the manual ends at 9-27. I was hoping someone here has that function generator and the manual?


OT (sorry)

Brendan
 

Im looking on evil bay at a hp8116A function generator. The one I'm looking at is displaying an e52. I have looked all over for error codes and am not able to find anything. The manual from agilent tells me to look at section 10 but the manual ends at 9-27. I was hoping someone here has that function generator and the manual?

31101 - 31120 of 176665