With a modern machine with just three or four modules (say power
supply,
logic board and one RAM module) then you take an informed guess
and can
swap modules until you guess right, unless of course a module you did
not
swap causes failure of another module. Then it gets expensive.
That is _exactly_ what I object to. Fault finding is not (or rather
should not) be bbased on guesswork. Unless you've found the fault
logically, you can't know you've fixed it.
For modern machines, that is the way the manufacturer wants it done,
when doing warranty work, they will not pay for true diagnostic work.
My company is not even required to have an oscilloscope, though we
were until recently required to have an implosion booth with a mirror
for when calibrating a CRT monitor or changing a CRT. Now all the
CRT monitors are out of warranty and they only sell LCD displays
we have taken it apart.
I've got stories of where a problem in one module
appeared to be
cured by
replacing a different one that was, say, more tolerant of timing
errors
on one of the signals. Of course the problem came back as the timing
error (which was the original fault) got worse.
Yes, and of course maybe the temperature had changed slightly or the
voltage had drifted. Four of the power rails in the 1301 are fitted with
marginal check facilities, it is possible to switch them off of the
standard
power stabilisers and wind them up and down via knobs on the machine's
front panel. There is also a facility for varying the clock rate up
and down.
In service, engineers were issued with special hammers to hit the
printed
circuit boards with to check that vibration did not cause a failure.
In all there are about 100 power supplies in the machine, and nearly
all have potentiometers hidden away under the covers which adjust the
voltages.
And this is one reason I don't have a modern computer. I don't have
(and
can't afford) the necessary test gear to be able to _prove_ which
module
is at fault.
I have scrapped an almost complete machine, so I
have many of the
commonest
modules. I understand digital electronics but I find it hard to get
my head around
the analogue electronics on the boards. Testing bare components is
'Digital circuits are built from Analogue parts' (one of Vonada's
lawas
IIRC).
I haev never understood how you can understand digitial electronics
properly and not understand analogue electronics. I certaimly couldn't
understnad digital stuff until I understood things like transmision
lines, termination, etc.
There is a big difference between fault finding digital electronics and
designing digital electronics.
Where there is an analogue signal,
like in the Drum Write amplifiers I can cope with that, but there is
some weird stuff, like there is a piece of what looks like 4 inches of
coaxial cable - which is apparently a delay line and the signal bounces
off the far end and comes back a bit later. There are 250 of these in
the core store, they never go wrong, but the boards they are on tend
to burn out one of their resistors frequently, and the core store
itself is a current device, so fault finding with voltage based
instruments
can be tricky. What I find difficult in an analogue circuit is
finding the
order of what drives what. Sometimes its easy, but often the circuit
diagrams are drawn in an illogical order, and sometimes there really
is deliberate feed back, the flip flop is an obvious example.
One time one of the three phase transformers was frying, it was in a
very awkward place. I pulled the output fuses and it continued to fry.
Eventually I changed it and the new one did the same, it was the three
phase bridge rectifier (six big diodes) which was shorting out, I had
not
realised it came before the three fuses (feeding three circuits) rather
being on the three secondaries of the transformer. Yes I should have
checked the circuit diagram, but that meant searching through several
hundred circuit diagrams, and I thought I knew what was doing. Wrong!
Anyway, no harm done.
hard enough
but testing them in circuit is tricky, especially if they require
half a dozen different
supply rails at weird voltages such as -18.0 -17.1, -12.6, -6.3,
-4.6, -2 and +12.6.
I think if I had a machine like that to maintain, I'd make up a
test rig,
with a power supply giving those voltages.
I have thought about it, its one of those things I will do when I get
a round tuit.
1960s components which look right are not easy to get new. The
To be honest, I don't care too much about the appearance of the
components, provided they are electrically correct. There are
certainly a
few obvious modern replacements in my 1968 HP9100B.
But I am hoping a museum will take it sometime as a working exhibit,
it is
the last working one if its kind, and at one time its type was about
25% of
the computers in Britain. Its biggest selling point was pounds
shillings and
pence in hardware. Then the IBM 360 came along and wiped the floor with
all the other computer makers.
What museums hate to see is modern components, so where there is a
choice
I stay with original parts, and always keep the original faulty parts
when I have
to use modern - such as when I put an old Apple switch mode power supply
in place of an old supply which used a transformer which is no longer
available.
Actually there were several identical power supplies in that Paper
Tape Reader,
and they all plugged into a big connector which had links to
configure the
power supply for the required voltage needed in that position. I put
the duff
one in a position where the required voltage was nearest to the Apple's
voltage (I think it was -17.1 volts, so I used the -12 and +5 volt
rails and
kept the other voltages, including ground and the case insulated).
Roger.