Author Topic: Restoration glory of Keithley 2001 DMM  (Read 221230 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline connor

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 13
  • Country: ca
Re: Restoration glory of Keithley 2001 DMM
« Reply #700 on: June 29, 2018, 02:41:33 pm »
Hello,My 2001 have a problem,when the power on,The ARM is not display,so it can not test anything。what is the problem with it ?
 

Offline TiN

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4194
  • Country: us
  • xDevs.com/live - 24/7 lab feed
    • xDevs.com
Re: Restoration glory of Keithley 2001 DMM
« Reply #701 on: June 29, 2018, 03:26:11 pm »
Likely no problem. You just need to read manual about triggering meter.
YouTube | Metrology IRC Chat room | Live-cam | Share T&M documentation? Upload! No MB limit, firmwares, photos.
 
The following users thanked this post: RandallMcRee

Offline Mr. Scram

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9584
  • Country: 00
  • Display aficionado
Re: Restoration glory of Keithley 2001 DMM
« Reply #702 on: June 29, 2018, 04:31:59 pm »
At least have the decency to put some NSFW tags on this thread. You're going to get me caught watching electronics porn on the job with threads like these.
 
The following users thanked this post: TiN

Offline connor

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 13
  • Country: ca
Re: Restoration glory of Keithley 2001 DMM
« Reply #703 on: July 01, 2018, 12:37:27 pm »
Hello,I have read it,config-trig-Arm ,but it can't save the settings, when i setting  in confirm page,the display will freeze, the same as the test page and the Reset page,is the digital board have same problem?thanks.
 

Offline TiN

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4194
  • Country: us
  • xDevs.com/live - 24/7 lab feed
    • xDevs.com
Re: Restoration glory of Keithley 2001 DMM
« Reply #704 on: July 01, 2018, 02:22:51 pm »
Could have problem. If meter is old, taking it apart and replacing all electrolytics is mandatory. There is enough information and photos in this thread to understand why is it so  :scared:.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2018, 02:35:03 pm by TiN »
YouTube | Metrology IRC Chat room | Live-cam | Share T&M documentation? Upload! No MB limit, firmwares, photos.
 

Offline connor

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 13
  • Country: ca
Re: Restoration glory of Keithley 2001 DMM
« Reply #705 on: July 01, 2018, 03:29:11 pm »
thanks,this is a very old meter ,the first calibration is 1994 ,I have read you blog,and i have changed all the Electrolytic capacitors, so is there any suggestions?
The TP601 in digital board is AC 2.5V or DC 2.5V? The other voltage is normal except this one.
 

Offline TiN

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4194
  • Country: us
  • xDevs.com/live - 24/7 lab feed
    • xDevs.com
Re: Restoration glory of Keithley 2001 DMM
« Reply #706 on: July 01, 2018, 04:30:48 pm »
I didn't ever test TP601 before, you can check schematics for what it does.
Bad VFD DC/AC/DC module can be also reason for digital board to hang randomly.
I had to replace those in few meters before.
YouTube | Metrology IRC Chat room | Live-cam | Share T&M documentation? Upload! No MB limit, firmwares, photos.
 

Online Robert763

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 196
  • Country: gb
Re: Restoration glory of Keithley 2001 DMM
« Reply #707 on: September 30, 2018, 06:58:44 pm »
Well threads been quiet, so here goes,
I just aquired a 2001 unexpectedly. It was on a test equipment dealers "spares or repair" pile at a Hamfest. Marked as "dead" and £25 I got it for £20 ($25). It's a early one '92 date codes and A06 firmware. Investigation sshows it's not too bad visually but C624, C630 and the VFD inverter are missing from the digital board.
I've ordered a full set of electrolytics and will lash something up for the VFD supplies. Further reports when the capacitors are replaced. The 2001 is a a lot smaller than my other 7.5 digit meters (Solartron).
I note that a couple of contributors have commented that C116 and C117 are underrated at 35V as they are part of the 38V bootstrap suppy. This is not correct, the capacitors are part of a voltage doubler and are in series with C114/C115 so see about 1/3 of the supply. Even if they saw half the supply it would only be 20V so 35V is OK. Nothing wrong with using 50V capacitors if all other ratings are similar, but lower voltage capacitors in same size and range tend to have higher ripple current ratings.
 
The following users thanked this post: TiN

Online Kjelt

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5884
  • Country: nl
Re: Restoration glory of Keithley 2001 DMM
« Reply #708 on: January 14, 2019, 04:21:38 pm »
Yes! I got a Keithley 2001 !  :-+
Now I have to get it to work again  ;)

So I got a nice Keithley 2001 from a friend: status broken does not work.
The unit came from a testrack and thus misses its hinge and feet, not that important to me.

Mains fuse was blown, but before replacing and trying first inspect what could have caused this.

Ofcourse I was curious to see what was going on under the hood.
Knowing the horror stories of leaking caps with these beauties I was afraid what to find.
On first short inspection not that much seemed to be going on.
No obvious oxydation or blueish copper salts on the components but there was this oily stuff... hmmmmmmmm

 

Online Kjelt

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5884
  • Country: nl
Re: Restoration glory of Keithley 2001 DMM
« Reply #709 on: January 14, 2019, 04:22:24 pm »
Desoldering the el-caps reveiled the real damage, except one all capacitors were leaking and these were real Nichicon, so far for japanese quality ;)
Bad series probably or thermal abuse over the years.

Most terrible experience thus far:
1- soldering this gunk releases an odor similar to a 25 year old cat peeing on a hotplate.
2- pulling the capacitor slowly and carefully while heating both pads and still find the oxydized/rotten vias attached to its feet.

Next steps is to clean up the mess with losts of IPA and a toothbrush and see how far I can get with replacing the caps and bodgewires.
 

Online Kleinstein

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7770
  • Country: de
Re: Restoration glory of Keithley 2001 DMM
« Reply #710 on: January 14, 2019, 04:28:18 pm »
For the initial clean up of the electrolyte water (e.g. deionized) is more effective than IPA. Pure IPA is not good in solving salts.
 

Offline TiN

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4194
  • Country: us
  • xDevs.com/live - 24/7 lab feed
    • xDevs.com
Re: Restoration glory of Keithley 2001 DMM
« Reply #711 on: January 14, 2019, 05:01:02 pm »
Based on photos you must remove ALL components at 5cm radius from electrolyte pond , clean board very very well, and replace parts back in. I would recommend just ordering new parts, most of them are just cheap ICs , resistors and caps.

Maybe you spend 50$ on parts and wait few weeks, but its better than powering meter with almost 80 volts floating supply and making a nice electrolysis station under not cleaned parts instead of working DMM.

Also blown fuse indicates that mains section need same treatment, and perhaps big ceramic resistor is open. Perhaps my meter can act as example.

Sent from my Lenovo K900_ROW using Tapatalk

YouTube | Metrology IRC Chat room | Live-cam | Share T&M documentation? Upload! No MB limit, firmwares, photos.
 

Offline macboy

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2019
  • Country: ca
Re: Restoration glory of Keithley 2001 DMM
« Reply #712 on: January 14, 2019, 05:13:42 pm »
Follow TiN's advice.
If it isn't obvious, when cleaning, hold the boards so that the dirty runoff flows away from the sensitive parts of the board. Don't just lay it flat, soak it and scrub away. You'll contaminate the entire board with conductive electrolyte, effectively ruining it. This thing is supposed to be able to measure G\$\Omega\$ or nA, and it can't do that if the pixies can flow anywhere they want to over the surface of the board.
 

Online Kjelt

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5884
  • Country: nl
Re: Restoration glory of Keithley 2001 DMM
« Reply #713 on: January 14, 2019, 05:53:18 pm »
Thanks for the advice will sure follow it.
Unsure if all components are easily found but start with clean water then desolder the parts then scrub with bioethanol a d finish with IPA.
 

Online Kjelt

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5884
  • Country: nl
Re: Restoration glory of Keithley 2001 DMM
« Reply #714 on: January 26, 2019, 12:27:45 pm »
The exposed area is too large to replace all components  :( It is the entire red area.
I am now starting from basics, I have cleaned thoroughly and will repair pcb traces and replace capacitors and then see what the status is.
If the power supplies are ok and I have some life I may continue.

For now I am looking at the capacitors. I saw on the xdevs site they used chemicon capacitors.
At my sources Farnell and TME these are not available, I am thinking about replacing them with the same brand and series, so Nichicon UVZ(M).
At least I think this was a bad batch or was the capacitor choice poorly made by the original designers ?

I also see that the 470uF/63V caps at xdevs have been replaced with lower ESR types, any reason for that, high ripple ? Or just prevention?
Any advice on other brands if the Nichicon are out ?
 

Offline coromonadalix

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2703
  • Country: ca
Re: Restoration glory of Keithley 2001 DMM
« Reply #715 on: January 26, 2019, 01:54:13 pm »
For a good cleaning, at my job we use VIGON SC 202  or Atron (dont recall the number)

We use an 5-7% concentration and spray it with deionized water and it clean pcb's very very well, anything greasy, flux  etc ..   i found out it remove the leaking caps mess too ... we rince with deionized hot water and put it in a heated chamber 110-120 degree C for 15 minutes.

I dont think all the surrounding parts needs to be changed, but while cleaning, its important not to push the electrolyte further into the surrounding parts.

I had exploded. badly leaked caps on pcb's, with a good cleaning/neutralisation,   surrounding parts never corroded and no ic's where damaged.

my 2 cents

 

Offline TiN

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4194
  • Country: us
  • xDevs.com/live - 24/7 lab feed
    • xDevs.com
Re: Restoration glory of Keithley 2001 DMM
« Reply #716 on: January 26, 2019, 04:34:51 pm »
I would still go with removing all "electrolitified" parts and doing thorough cleaning under packages. If you just clean without removing, electrolyte that remains under package will cost you days and weeks or senseless troubleshooting for leakage and drift issues. Been there, done that, never again.  :) So it's just tedious and time-consuming at start, but after that part is done you will be saving days of time in further repairs (or maybe no need other repairs at all, like my second K2002 which use same components/circuit for marked red area).
YouTube | Metrology IRC Chat room | Live-cam | Share T&M documentation? Upload! No MB limit, firmwares, photos.
 

Online Kjelt

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5884
  • Country: nl
Re: Restoration glory of Keithley 2001 DMM
« Reply #717 on: January 26, 2019, 06:16:00 pm »
I would still go with removing all "electrolitified" parts and doing thorough cleaning under packages.
You warned about the heat sensitivity of the Keithleys pcb's. So how do you suggest removing esp the ic packages without destroying them by for instance cutting the legs.
I am to afraid to damage pcb traces with heat.

The packages look clean though. The pcb traces affected are all around the caps location, further away I can not see any sign of erosion.
 

Offline ddcc

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 102
  • Country: us
Re: Restoration glory of Keithley 2001 DMM
« Reply #718 on: February 09, 2019, 10:17:11 am »
I recently picked up a Keithley 2001M (advertised as 2001), which came with firmware B16, and decent-looking Nichicon capacitors without any sign of leakage. Thanks to the information on TiN's website, I upgraded the unit to firmware B17, and added the MEM2 option. Everything seems to function correctly, including the self-test, but when I perform the open circuit step of user-level comprehensive calibration, I'm getting error 363, which is described as "200uA gain out of spec". The closest corresponding self-test seems to be 309.1, which routes the 89uA ohms source through the 200uA current range and checks for 89mV at A/D input. Now, I'm a bit stumped where the problem is, as I'd like to avoid desoldering any of the precision resistors, e.g. R344 (900, 90, 9) and R215 (24.5k, 500), the ADC board is mounted upside down over the A/D amplifier/ranging area, and I haven't found a reference locator for the layout (e.g. where is A/D IN?).

Currently, I suspect one of the analog switches for the current ranging, and I'm thinking about replacing all of the ‎DG211BDY/DG411DY parts in this area (U323, U317, U320). I don't think the problem is with the main opamp U322 (LT1007) or the gain selection resistor R215 for 1x/50x, because the unit works fine otherwise, and I haven't received any errors about DC gain, which appears to be calibrated first during open circuit calibration. Rather, while probing the 200uA and ACA switch inputs for current ranging, I see the switches actuate, but there's also a slight ~2mV offset between the input and output of one of the analog switches. Does this seem reasonable?
 

Offline ddcc

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 102
  • Country: us
Re: Restoration glory of Keithley 2001 DMM
« Reply #719 on: February 16, 2019, 06:44:53 am »
Update: I swapped out the analog switches, but the problem still remains. I've also verified all of the current sources (e.g. 9.2mA, 0.98 mA, etc) in two-wire resistance mode, so that's not the problem either. Since I know all the switches are good now, I plan to focus on checking the calibration-related components around U322, the main A/D amplifier, including R340 switched through /ZERO, the 1.75V reference switched through /2VREF, etc, before I consider touching any of the precision resistors.
 

Offline TiN

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4194
  • Country: us
  • xDevs.com/live - 24/7 lab feed
    • xDevs.com
Re: Restoration glory of Keithley 2001 DMM
« Reply #720 on: February 16, 2019, 06:59:47 am »
Did you check front/rear switch? Check current with scope and actuate switch few times to see if you get same stable behavior every time. AD IN is pin 4 at ADC board. Also run self test many times to see if any rogue errors still might be hiding.

Sent from my Lenovo K900_ROW using Tapatalk

YouTube | Metrology IRC Chat room | Live-cam | Share T&M documentation? Upload! No MB limit, firmwares, photos.
 

Offline ddcc

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 102
  • Country: us
Re: Restoration glory of Keithley 2001 DMM
« Reply #721 on: February 16, 2019, 07:06:55 am »
Did you check front/rear switch? Check current with scope and actuate switch few times to see if you get same stable behavior every time. AD IN is pin 4 at ADC board. Also run self test many times to see if any rogue errors still might be hiding.

I haven't touched the front/rear switch, everything I've been doing has been with it set to the front. Since it's a physical push switch, can the rear affect anything when it's set to the front? I will check it tomorrow. I'll also check the current sources with a scope, so far I've only measured them with another meter. I've probably run the self-test at least ten times now, but unfortunately it's never found anything.
 

Offline ddcc

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 102
  • Country: us
Re: Restoration glory of Keithley 2001 DMM
« Reply #722 on: February 20, 2019, 06:29:30 am »
Thanks for the suggestions! I checked the output of the current source using the front panel in resistance mode, and something definitely seems weird. With 1M \$\Omega\$ load, the 200 \$\Omega\$ range shows a bit of a glitch in the output voltage, perhaps it's just a bit of noise... But, as I move into the 20k and 200k ranges, it gets significantly worse, with the 200k range showing a drop of ~2.4V at around 2.4 Hz. Unless this is intended behavior, there's definitely something wrong with the current source!

Aside from that, everything else looks fine. Nothing seems wrong with front/rear measurements, and the resistors around the A/D amplifier seem fine, though they're not easy to measure in circuit. I don't see the 1.75V reference, but I'm probably not in the right mode for it to be generated.
« Last Edit: March 03, 2019, 12:39:55 am by ddcc »
 

Offline ddcc

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 102
  • Country: us
Re: Restoration glory of Keithley 2001 DMM
« Reply #723 on: March 03, 2019, 01:17:33 am »
I spent some more time measuring various components, but unfortunately I think I might have been misled by the behavior of the input buffer when it is overloaded. Because I was looking at a 1M \$\Omega\$ load in the 20k \$\Omega\$ range, the voltage was around 12.76V at OHMS ISOURCE, and at 5.7V going into the input amplifier U322, which pushed up +8VF to 12.77V and -8VF to -1.41V. I wasn't able to figure out exactly where the glitch was coming from, but I'm pretty confident the problem isn't with the ohms current source, because everything looks correct during both self-test and normal non-overload conditions.

On the other hand, I'm still no closer to determining the cause of the calibration failure. I've measured and reviewed a lot of the ohms circuitry, but I still don't quite understand how some parts of it operate. For example, I'm not sure what the purpose of comparator U333 and buffer U331 are, the function of the nearby OHMOLD / 10mA BIAS section, and why U331/U333 are connected to the switched capacitor block U330. Also, given the 7V output of the LM399 and the 1.75V reference voltage, I'd expect U330 to be configured for dividing-by-four, but the schematic doesn't match that of the example given in the LTC1043 datasheet.
 

Offline openloop

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 62
  • Country: us
Re: Restoration glory of Keithley 2001 DMM
« Reply #724 on: March 03, 2019, 03:41:48 am »
Quote
and why U331/U333 are connected to the switched capacitor block U330

[My understanding:] They just move the reference over to different DC offset. And U331 buffers it.

2.4 Hz pulses are probably from autozero.  Switch it off to check.
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf