Teac BX330 DC Coupled Amplifier Front End FET Replacement

This is a quick post to record a problem and fix I had with my old Teac BX330 Audio Amplifier.
They are basically a good old amplifier. Their primary feature is that they are DC coupled, meaning there is no bottom end cutoff frequency for those audio buffs so focused on purity of their bass notes.

You will need a service manual to follow this. They are available on-line. I paid for mine but I notice they are now available for free download.

The symptom was that the speaker protection circuit refused to engage relay K301. This relay activates the audio to the output.
The protection circuit was doing it's job.
The problem turned out to be a failed JFET Q203 in the front end of the DC coupled amplifier. This JFET was leaking +15V to it's gate The right channel was the fault trigger but the left channel also displayed the same fault to a lesser degree.
The JFETS are PN 2SK109C. I was unable to locate a source or any detail on them and with no serviceable device from which to determine characteristics, finding an alternative was going to be something of a guessing game.
Going by the circuitry and voltages present, I came up with Fairchild JFET PN J112 as a suitable alternative.
The original JFET is a matched pair in one case. The alternative devices are separate so you need two for each channel and you need to source them from the same batch. I was able to source them on eBay.

You will need to bend the pins so that the Gate and Source are in the correct location to match the Q103/Q203 footprints. The Drains are at either end of the original device, Gate next, then Source. Note the order on the J112 is Drain, Source Gate, hence the requirement for some pin bending.

The adjustment procedure on page 5 of the service manual effectively sets the DC voltage on the speakers to 0VDC. This cannot be achieved when the faulty JFETS are in circuit. On the worst (RH) channel the minimum I could get was 16VDC. That would destroy any connected speaker if it weren't for the protection circuit. If you find the adjustment is range limited it's time to make some minor modifications.
I found the left channel adjusted to zero as is but the right channel needed some slight circuit modification. Namely R222 paralleled with 10K and R223 bypassed with a shorting link.

Prado 2003 1GR-FE TCC Locker

Prado 2003 1GR-FE TCC Locker.

If you are looking for details on the Prado Auto release TCC locker see this link: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/eq3pu6e7fjb1kgl/AAAn4ibGkhbl3L1UOomAu6lra?dl=0

4Spd Prado MATCU

4Spd Prado MATCU.

If  you are looking for details on the 4 Speed Prado MATCU (Manual Auto Transmission Control Unit) see this link: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/s97o8wisyeryygn/AAC6-QEepPkUWQwzoT8OSzFDa?dl=0

What Type Of Greenie Are You? - A Little Test

Lets face it. We're all greenies to some extent. 

Who would want to trash their own world, when it's the only one we have? The fact is there is no replacement possible at this point in time nor is there likely to be for a very very long time to come, if ever.

However, most of us would shudder at the thought of being called a "greenie". The reason of course is that the name has been hijacked and trashed by a political org "hell bent" on power and control via a "scatter brained" ideology.

The “political greens” are in fact “extremist economic terrorists”. They unite to conquer and dominate. They seek to dictate, to all, the way we live our lives. Their ideology demands living conditions and restrictions far worse than communism. See Agenda 21.

They have infiltrated all levels of government from local councils right through to the UN.

They have also infiltrated education institutions at all levels so they can preach their ideology to the young and vulnerable on a global scale. 

In my opinion the political greens are right up there, with the worst terrorists in the world. They already commit life threatening terrorist activities throughout the world in support of their agenda. 

In this country (Australia) their popularity and thus power base has waned. Their frustration of not achieving their goals will undoubtedly lead them to intensify such activities.

I intend to do everything in my power to make sure their slide does indeed continue in order to restore the name “greenie” to its traditional meaning. I hope others follow.

So what exactly is the traditional meaning of "greenie". I'll refer to these as "pure greenies" just to make a clear distinction with the terrorist org.

"Pure greenies" seek to minimize their ecological footprint so that more can share a good life on the planet in whatever way they want. 

They don’t make suicidal economic decisions for any purpose, especially not for power and control over others.

They understand nature and “evolution” and that all species adapt to their environment. If they can’t, they perish and will be replaced by new species, that are better suited to the environmental conditions of the time.

They understand Geology, the changing planet they live on and don’t expect everything to remain static or be in their control.

They understand that a green environment is a healthy one and a pleasant place to live. It has both mental and physical health benefits and as such increases their chances of a long and fruitful life.

As such I consider myself to be a "pure greenie". There are many of us across the world. I know many on all sides of politics. They’re a quiet bunch, not seeking power and not attempting to dominate others. However they will resist when others attempt such acts on them. If it weren’t for the few noisy ones like me, you wouldn’t know we even existed.

My family lives on a suburban block. We are keen gardeners with tree numbers on the property about four times the average for the area. The garden is watered using recycled grey water and tank water. The rain water tanks also supplement the “mains” water supply for much of the household use. Our “mains” water usage runs at around 25 to 40 liters per person per day. The average in this area is over 150 liters per person per day.

My average power usage from mains power is 7 KWhr/day.
My average power feed back to the grid from the solar system is 18 KWhr/day, hence my net power usage is a negative 11 KWhrs/day (i.e. fed back to the grid)

The above items focus on footprint reduction without causing any restrictions to ones lifestyle. There is some effort and cost involved in infrastructure, plumbing and plants etc. The commitment to such effort and cost provide a good indication of just how much of a "pure greenie" you are.

So here is the test: I invite you all to give your comparative numbers to those items above i.e.:

1. Trees on your property compared with others in your area.

2. Mains water usage compared with others in your area.

3. Mains power usage.

Finally, beware of those that want to add things like "what you drive, where and when". Such people seek to restrict, dominate and control you and they belong in the terrorist category.

Mathematical Analysis Of The Depletion Characteristics Of Atmospheric CO2

Update 19 Nov 2013
At last we have a decent analysis of CO2 depletion rates. IPCC models found to be seriously flawed. Surprised?

http://principia-scientific.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=398&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_November_18_2013

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This blog is intended to bring attention to the need for more rigorous mathematical analysis of the depletion characteristics of atmospheric CO2. It's something that I have noticed is sorely missing from the AGW debate. It's my belief that more effort in this area would better help our understanding of the potential of CO2 to impact on the wellbeing of our planet and it's inhabitants.

So this is my attempt to kick off such analysis.

Scientists say CO2 has a half life of 5 years. The IPCC say it's much more, without actually showing any empirical evidence. It really doesn't matter what it is. The main thing is that, by quoting a half life, they are accepting that it's a natural inverse exponential decay just like radioactive isotopes and even the voltage across a parallel RC circuit. ie:

1/e^x

x = t/T, where “t” is time and “T” is the time constant which is related to the half life by:

T = t(1/2) * 1.443 where t(1/2) is the half life time.

This relationship is derived by solving the equation at the 50% depleted point.

0.5 = 1/e^[t(1/2)/T]
So e^[t(1/2)/T] = 1/0.5 = 2
t(1/2)/T = ln(2) where “ln” is the natural log
So T=t(1/2)*1/ln(2)
T = t(1/2) * 1.443

In this case the T value is not simple but a mix of complex variables associated with photosynthesis, sunlight, cloud cover, temp, foliage coverage etc. If you average them over a year, they can be treated as constants and this provides a good year by year assessment of CO2 depletion.

The key point is that this suggests the CO2 depletion rate is proportional to it's magnitude, as is the case with all exponential decays. Hence there is no limiting factor. 

They same could be said of the RC circuit except that the capacitor would break down with higher voltages. I see no such possibility in photosynthesis. Furthermore, experiments do show that the higher the CO2 level, the higher the depletion rate and hence the faster the plant growth.

See>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=P2qVNK6zFgE

So if we use our equation to chart the decay of atmospheric CO2 from a level of 2GT, for example, it would look like this:

The X axis is years and Y axis is GT of CO2.

So if you don't add any more CO2, then after 5 years you would lose 1GT. Alternatively if we had 200GT, then after 5 years, we would lose 100GT etc. ie depletion rate is proportional to magnitude and there is no limit to the CO2 sink. At least that's what this equation predicts. 

Furthermore, additional plant growth would result from the higher CO2 level, creating more foliage cover, which would increase the depletion rate, with a corresponding reduction in T and the half life.

Even without that additional foliage cover, we have a natural regulator of atmospheric CO2. The additional foliage just makes that function all the more potent.

This would seem a more likely postulate than that being suggested by the IPCC and/or their supporters. 

If the IPCCs "saturation of the CO2 sink" postulate were valid, then why is it that earths CO2 levels have been so well controlled over it's lifetime. 

Wouldn't it spin out of control and stay that way the first time a large volcano went off? These produce more atmospheric CO2 in a few days than humans do in several years.

This of course is an untested postulate but I believe it is more logical that that proposed by the IPCC. Time will tell who is right. In the mean time further testing like that shown in the link above will throw more light on this issue.

To confirm the exact nature of CO2 depletion by experimentation is difficult since we can't, on a global scale, get the situation where CO2 is not continually added.

I have seen some plots that have come from contained experiments and, while they are much lumpier that that shown above, they do follow that trend when one considers points from one year to the next.

We need more effort in this area from the science community. If there is a limiting factor in CO2 absorption as proposed by the IPCC and/or their supporters then we need to know about it.

On the other hand if there is no such limit, as suggested above, then we can expect that CO2 will remain well in control, even with many times more than the current human input of around 3.2% of total atmospheric CO2.

For long term historic temperature and CO2 levels I use this reference: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

Finally: I understand, from researching this subject that the human tolerance of atmospheric CO2 is currently around 10,000 ppm, above which minor symptoms, such as headaches, can result. Of course we and other species continue to evolve to our atmospheric conditions, so provided there is no rapid change, species will adapt to whatever levels are maintained in the future. If they can't adapt then that's nature and evolution. It's not always kind.

Thanks for taking the time to reading my blog. 

Please feel free to comment, especially if you find any rigorous mathematical analysis material covering this subject.

The Corruption of Climatology

Climatology: The science discipline, so corrupted by green ideology, that it’s now normal practice to presume your postulates and assumptions valid “just in case they are”.

This inevitably leads to failed models like so:

(Source: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06/still-epic-fail-73-climate-models-vs-measurements-running-5-year-means/  )

And when the climatologist’s models fail, the solution is to make further assumptions to defend them.

Like for example: “The heat has gone to the ocean depths and hides there in defiance of the laws of physics and that’s messing up our global temperature models.”

Or like this: “All the moisture has been sucked up by the dry Australian deserts and that’s messed up our sea level predictions.”

Or this: “the increased ice only looks impressive because last year was a bad year for ice”

Oh really!

(Source: http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/09/06/nasa-losing-credibility-at-an-alarming-rate/  )

So where did this cancerous science mutate.

The club of Rome (just join the dots folks)>> http://green-agenda.com/

Wake up world, your being had, big time!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/03/14/peer-into-the-heart-of-the-ipcc-find-greenpeace/

Ancient Horse's Arses Control Almost Everything - History Lesson

Railroad  tracks. The  US standard railroad gauge (distance between the rails) is 4  feet, 8.5 inches. That's an exceedingly odd number. Why  was that gauge used? Because that's the way they built them in  England , and English expatriates designed the US  railroads. Why  did the English build them like that? Because the first rail  lines were built by the same people who built the pre-railroad  tramways, and that's the gauge they  used. Why  did 'they' use that gauge then? Because the people who built  the tramways used the same jigs and tools that they had used  for building wagons, which used that wheel  spacing.    Why  did the wagons have that particular odd wheel spacing? Well,  if they tried to use any other spacing, the wagon wheels would  break on some of the old, long distance roads in England ,  because that's the spacing of the wheel  ruts. So  who built those old rutted roads? Imperial Rome built the  first long distance roads in Europe (including England ) for  their legions. Those roads have been used ever  since. And  the ruts in the roads? Roman war chariots formed the initial  ruts, which everyone else had to match for fear of destroying  their wagon  wheels.    Since  the chariots were made for Imperial Rome , they were all alike  in the matter of wheel spacing. Therefore the United States  standard railroad gauge of 4 feet, 8.5 inches is derived from  the original specifications for an Imperial Roman war chariot.  Bureaucracies live  forever.   So  the next time you are handed a specification/procedure/process  and wonder 'What horse's arse came up with this?' , you may be  exactly right. Imperial Roman army chariots were made just  wide enough to accommodate the rear ends of two war horses.  (Two horses'  arses.)        Now,  the twist to the  story:When  you see a Space Shuttle sitting on its launch pad, there are  two big booster rockets attached to the sides of the main fuel  tank. These are solid rocket boosters, or SRBs. The SRBs are  made by Thiokol at their factory in  Utah        The  engineers  who designed the SRBs would have preferred to make them a bit  fatter, but the SRBs had to be shipped by train from the  factory to the launch site.  The railroad line from the factory  happens to run through a tunnel in the mountains, and the SRBs  had to fit through that tunnel. The tunnel is slightly wider  than the railroad track, and the railroad track, as you now  know, is about as wide as two horses'  behinds.        So,  a major Space Shuttle design feature of what is arguably the  world's most advanced transportation system was determined  over two thousand years ago by the width of a horse's arse.  And you thought being a horse's arse wasn't important? Ancient  horse's arses control almost  everything... Source: email, author unknown