Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
OT: Philips SPC900NC fix
22 views
Skip to first unread message
Paul D Smith
Jul 30, 2012, 9:54:28 AM7/30/12
to
In case anyone wants to use one of these (apparently they're OK for check
astronomy use) - I got hold of a "broken" one of these and managed to fix
it.
Symptoms were that it appeared totally dead. Plugging into a PC resulted in
nothing.
I opened it up (plenty of instructions on the web) and split the two boards
and then tried plugging just the lower board into PC (i.e. without the CCD
board). It appeared as a composite device!
So having identified the CCD board as the probable culprit, out with the
magnifying glass. I managed to spot two of the CCD connections soldered
together whereas the internal CCD wiring (clearly visible) indicated they
should not be. Quick go with the soldering iron (one of those
magnified-lights-on-an-anglepoise-stand would be useful here) broke the
connection and after reassembly, it all worked.
It did not look like someone had already played with it so perhaps this is a
production problem. Anyway, might help someone get one of these working.
Paul DS.
astronomy use) - I got hold of a "broken" one of these and managed to fix
it.
Symptoms were that it appeared totally dead. Plugging into a PC resulted in
nothing.
I opened it up (plenty of instructions on the web) and split the two boards
and then tried plugging just the lower board into PC (i.e. without the CCD
board). It appeared as a composite device!
So having identified the CCD board as the probable culprit, out with the
magnifying glass. I managed to spot two of the CCD connections soldered
together whereas the internal CCD wiring (clearly visible) indicated they
should not be. Quick go with the soldering iron (one of those
magnified-lights-on-an-anglepoise-stand would be useful here) broke the
connection and after reassembly, it all worked.
It did not look like someone had already played with it so perhaps this is a
production problem. Anyway, might help someone get one of these working.
Paul DS.
N_Cook
Jul 31, 2012, 3:44:19 AM7/31/12
to
Paul D Smith <paul_d...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:jv63ml$e91$1...@dont-email.me...
Would not have passed final testing , like that, at production. Probably
close but seaparate solder joints that would have passed final tests, that
over time bridged with tin-whiskers.
Any idea of date of production ?, if later than 2006 then much more likely
tin-whisker growing conditions. Although aerospace is a derogated industry,
outside of Wee/RoHS and can use proper solder, astronomical telescopes
would not be covered by that derogation.
news:jv63ml$e91$1...@dont-email.me...
close but seaparate solder joints that would have passed final tests, that
over time bridged with tin-whiskers.
Any idea of date of production ?, if later than 2006 then much more likely
tin-whisker growing conditions. Although aerospace is a derogated industry,
outside of Wee/RoHS and can use proper solder, astronomical telescopes
would not be covered by that derogation.
Paul D Smith
Aug 20, 2012, 7:54:34 AM8/20/12
to
> Would not have passed final testing , like that, at production. Probably
> close but seaparate solder joints that would have passed final tests, that
> over time bridged with tin-whiskers.
> Any idea of date of production ?
Not sure - is there a way to tell?
> close but seaparate solder joints that would have passed final tests, that
> over time bridged with tin-whiskers.
> Any idea of date of production ?
0 new messages