Quote from: TinselKoala on June 10, 2012, 11:13:04 PM
I concur.
Therefore:
http://anonymouse.org/anonwww.html

the mental midgets agree... well, at least all is right with the multiverse.

is your IP anonymous? mostly, unless you have your own assigned address space or you're doing your surfing from a business or enterprise that has its own assigned address space. finding out who is behind an ISP's dynamically assigned IP usually takes a letter from an attorney.

can your IP address be used to track you? absolutely not. i can walk out the door right now and although i'll have to stop typing, i can guarantee you that nothing about my IP address will have given away the fact that i went to get a bottle of coca-cola from across the street.

can your IP address be used to track your [web] activities? yes, to a limited extent, but due to the prevalence of dynamic IP addressing and the number of proxy -based systems (frequently used more for security in large companies than for privacy), generally nobody bothers. cookies are a more reliable way to associate a person (or at least a computer) with their browsing habits. but for that to happen successfully some cooperation is required among the sites that place those cookies on your computer. don't even get me started about cookies - another overblown source of panic from mental midgets without propeller beanies... those of us with the beanies know better than to care.

furthermore, IP check makes anonymouse.org look like a service that would only be endorsed by a blathering idiot... or a troll...

http://anonymouse.org/cgi-bin/anon-www.cgi/http://ip-check.info/?lang=en

the privacy test IP check demonstrates that web proxy providers like anonymouse.org are not providing the privacy protection that they, or the troll, imply. any arbitrary website is able to circumvent web proxies and to uncover the user's IP address and browser data, which should be actually protected by the proxy.



and finally, once again, tu stultus es!

Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 11, 2012, 03:49:04 AM
And FTC and Picowatt - don't bother to even sign up.  Your posts will be deleted - on principle.  The last thing we want are admitted con artists with the declared intention of denying any evidence of over unity.  You - FTC - need to withdraw that Scribd publication that you pretend is your work.  The legal term here is 'PLAGIARISM'.  At least our TK acknowledges a negative wattage  albeit he's trying very hard to deny its significance.  You on the other hand are claiming some valuable technology that is NOT yours to claim.

But TK - you're welcome.  I'd love to have the opportunity of arguing with you while you're also constrained to a modicum of politesse.  It will render your posts vacuous - at best - because their only flavour comes from the borrowed ingredients of our technology.  We have impeccable proof of unity breaches - strangely endorsed by your own continual replication of these results - and your sad efforts at  pretending that they mean nothing.

Rosie Pose

Are you now saying that somewhere I have admitted to being a "con artist" or declared an intention of denying evidence of overunity?  It sounds like you are continuing to make things up and put your words in other peoples' mouths as you usually do.

I really don't know what your problem is and don't really care.  I am glad that after the best part of a year you now see that the FG has a 50 ohm output (not thousands and thousands) and that an FG can indeed pass current.  Possibly in a few months you will see the AC path around the generator as well.

When you learn how to read your LeCroy, possibly you will also see the problem with your FIG 3 regarding Q1. 

As for your claim of overunity, please show me a quote where I ever said your device was not overunity or otherwise.  I stated that a neg mean pwr indication as measured cannot by itself be presented as proof of overunity and agree with .99's analysis regarding that.

As to joining your new site, I have no interest whatsoever.  I am sure that there will be plenty of discussion here and elsewhere when you once again claim the overunity prizes.   

TK,

Sorry to hear about the F43. 

Subbing out the MPSU06/56 is a bit more difficult then it may seem.  First, I believe the pinout on those devices have the base lead in the center position.  This is not a big deal as one can put a bit of heat shrink on the collector lead of another package and with a bit of careful lead bending, make the pinout correct.

The tough part is finding an 80 volt, 2amp device with an fT of 150MHz or so and an Hfe of at least 100.  Not only were the '06/'56 high voltage for their day, but they were also very fast with a fair amount of current gain.

You will find that most of the 220 packages are either slower and/or do not have as much gain.

I'll dig around in my data books as time permits and see if I can come up with something suitable.  Right off hand I was thinking the 2SD669/2SB649 might work for you, but they are only 1.5 amp devices.

Are the '06/'56 in the F43 on heatsinks?  Do the outputs appear to be paralleled?

If you can isolate the output section, or, as you have all the pwr devices pulled, you might try firing up the unit to see if only the output section was damaged.  If you can identify the input to the output section, possibly you can 'scope around and see if the osc section is still functioning.  Consider a variac and monitoring AC current as you attempt to fire it up without the output section.  Also, monitor the supply section voltages to ensure that they make sense and have some regulation.  Likely there is a +/- 15 volt or so supply and a HV section for the output stage.  If there are any IC's, look for an identifiable IC that you can get the supply pinout for and monitor voltages at the IC as you ramp up with the variac.  Do not let the supply exceed the IC's rating.  Also, a problem with the supplies (shorted reg, etc) usually shows a lot of ripple when 'scoped.

Let's hope only the output section was damaged!

Without a schematic, its fly by the seat of your pants time.   

PW



   

Quote from: picowatt on June 11, 2012, 12:21:19 PM
TK,

Sorry to hear about the F43. 

Subbing out the MPSU06/56 is a bit more difficult then it may seem.  First, I believe the pinout on those devices have the base lead in the center position.  This is not a big deal as one can put a bit of heat shrink on the collector lead of another package and with a bit of careful lead bending, make the pinout correct.

Yes, that's right; fortunately there is plenty of room, although one pair did have a ferrite bead on the base leads so there is some concern about keeping these wires short.

Quote
The tough part is finding an 80 volt, 2amp device with an fT of 150MHz or so and an Hfe of at least 100.  Not only were the '06/'56 high voltage for their day, but they were also very fast with a fair amount of current gain.

You will find that most of the 220 packages are either slower and/or do not have as much gain.

I'll dig around in my data books as time permits and see if I can come up with something suitable.  Right off hand I was thinking the 2SD669/2SB649 might work for you, but they are only 1.5 amp devices.

Are the '06/'56 in the F43 on heatsinks?  Do the outputs appear to be paralleled?

They are (were) all attached to a small common heatsink attached to the inside of the case, with insulating mica. I don't think the outputs are parallelled.   The copper traces from the collectors of the first pnp-npn pair to the bases of the second pair are relatively thin and their emitters go thru some heavy resistors to the collector traces of the second pair, and the traces coming from the collectors of the second pair are very heavy, go back to the PS section and are bypassed to ground with 3.3 uF 50 V tantalums and the emitters of this second pair go to the output attenuator through a maze of big 2 Watt carbon resistors.  So the first stage pnp drives the second stage npn and vice versa, I think. I'm not good at tracing diagrams from the circuit board, but at least the board is marked off in functional block sections so I can tell what is what. I _think_ that the U56 transistor that is the clear short on testing was the first stage of that side, and the second stage one is the one that I think might be open.

Quote

If you can isolate the output section, or, as you have all the pwr devices pulled, you might try firing up the unit to see if only the output section was damaged.

This is about where I am at so far.

QuoteIf you can identify the input to the output section, possibly you can 'scope around and see if the osc section is still functioning.  Consider a variac and monitoring AC current as you attempt to fire it up without the output section.  Also, monitor the supply section voltages to ensure that they make sense and have some regulation.  Likely there is a +/- 15 volt or so supply and a HV section for the output stage. 

Yep; I've already looked at the current draw without the output transistors and it's reasonable, about 250 mA and it's fused for 375 mA. So at least that eliminates the main DC rectifier and filter section, I guess.

QuoteIf there are any IC's, look for an identifiable IC that you can get the supply pinout for and monitor voltages at the IC as you ramp up with the variac.  Do not let the supply exceed the IC's rating.  Also, a problem with the supplies (shorted reg, etc) usually shows a lot of ripple when 'scoped.

There are a handful of identifiable ICs and today, after the parts run, I'll be looking at voltages.

Quote

Let's hope only the output section was damaged!

Without a schematic, its fly by the seat of your pants time.   

PW 

Yes, that's right, let's hope. Most of the ICs are common types, in sockets,  and should not present problems if they are bad. There are a _lot_ of little tantalum capacitors in there, though.

Thanks for your help on this. I really like this old fossil and want to keep it around as long as possible.

TK,

I've done a bit more part searching.  Finding 1.5 amp devices that will work is fairly easy.  the parts metioned in my post will work as low cost parts for testing.  I doubt the 1.5 amp would be exceeded during normal operation.  2SC2275/2SA985 (or the A versions) are also a posibility, very fast and higher voltage, but again only 1.5 amp devices.

Regarding the pinout, I doubt you will find center base configuration, unless you spring for the real parts.  I would be tempted to use the low cost parts to troubleshoot and verify operation.  If there is gain in the power section of the output stage, you may end up with ringing/overshoot issues (or worst case some oscillation).

It's a shame they now want an arm and a leg for those old 50 cent parts!

PW