OK, here's the deal.... I got TWO 1571's that are NON-FUNCTIONING and
I am asking for information on how to fix them

 One does not come up on the system AT ALL (I tried 8,9,10, & 11 and
NONE WORK)! Could that be one of the 65C22 chips inside? If not, then
what chip controls the device numbers?

  The second has the activity light on AT ALL TIMES and the motor
appears to get stuck off! Is this the stepper chip? If so, then which
chip is that? If not, then which chip is it?



  Thanks for all the help as I am MUCH MORE familiar with C64
diagnostics than with the 128's! Lolololo


  Charles

>  One does not come up on the system AT ALL (I tried 8,9,10, & 11 and

Have you tried swapping a different cable and swapping a different ROM ?

Does the error channel return a code or does it hang or does it ignore it?

On Sep 26, 2:29 pm, ramswell <shifty_bu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>  OK, here's the deal.... I got TWO 1571's that are NON-FUNCTIONING and
> I am asking for information on how to fix them
>
>  One does not come up on the system AT ALL (I tried 8,9,10, & 11 and
> NONE WORK)! Could that be one of the 65C22 chips inside? If not, then
> what chip controls the device numbers?
>
>   The second has the activity light on AT ALL TIMES and the motor
> appears to get stuck off! Is this the stepper chip? If so, then which
> chip is that? If not, then which chip is it?
>
>   Thanks for all the help as I am MUCH MORE familiar with C64
> diagnostics than with the 128's! Lolololo
>
>   Charles

i got a couple 1541s that are the same they arent worth what it will
take to fix them

ramswell wrote:

>  One does not come up on the system AT ALL (I tried 8,9,10, & 11 and
> NONE WORK)! Could that be one of the 65C22 chips inside? If not, then
> what chip controls the device numbers?

It's not that simple. If you turn the ignition in your car and nothing 
happens, it's rarely the ignition switch itself. There's _plenty_ of things 
that could be wrong with the 1571 that appear as a missing device.

>   The second has the activity light on AT ALL TIMES and the motor
> appears to get stuck off! Is this the stepper chip? If so, then which
> chip is that? If not, then which chip is it?

Again, same deal. The activity LED is driven by a transistor which is 
switched by the 6522 which is controlled by the 6502 which is controlled by 
the ROM. Several external hardware events, plus internal software events, 
result in the ROM software direct the activity LED to turn on. There could 
be a problem with any of the above.

Trying to be more helpful...

The stepper motor is driven by the "R/W_HYBRID" chip (U7 on my schematics). 
I'm not really familiar with this drive (more-so the 1541) so I can't 
comment on likely failures. But it could be the stepper motor itself. That 
aside, if it's anything like the 1541, it's the 6502 that controls the 
stepping via, IIRC, a 6522.

Regards,

-- 
|              Mark McDougall                | "Electrical Engineers do it
|  <http://members.iinet.net.au/~msmcdoug>   |   with less resistance!"

"ramswell" <shifty_butch@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1190842185.620280.324290@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> OK, here's the deal.... I got TWO 1571's that are NON-FUNCTIONING and
> I am asking for information on how to fix them
>
> One does not come up on the system AT ALL (I tried 8,9,10, & 11 and
> NONE WORK)! Could that be one of the 65C22 chips inside? If not, then
> what chip controls the device numbers?

Does the drive initialise when you switch it on?
It could be any number of fault(s) if the the computer can't communicate 
with the drive at all and unlikely to have anything to do with device number 
selection and more with communication. If the CIA's are socketed try 
swapping them with known good ones.

>  The second has the activity light on AT ALL TIMES and the motor
> appears to get stuck off! Is this the stepper chip? If so, then which
> chip is that? If not, then which chip is it?
>

I've come across this before on a 1571 and what I did was manually move the 
drive head assembly back and forth and from then on the drive worked 
perfectly. Over time with lack of use the stepper may get stuck so moving it 
back and forth a couple of times might do the job.

>
>  Thanks for all the help as I am MUCH MORE familiar with C64
> diagnostics than with the 128's! Lolololo
>

That has nothing to do with diagnosing drive faults, the 1571 works on a C64 
too! 

> If you turn the ignition in your car and nothing
> happens, it's rarely the ignition switch itself.

If you worked at a new car dealership, you would know better.

For example:

http://autopedia.com/html/FordRecall.html

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/automotive/ford_focus_ignition.html

I have repaired MANY vehicles where the problem was the ignition switch. It
is a $12 mechanical part that can easily be turned off and on thousands of
times per year. Why would anyone want to check that first.

> It's not that simple.

Though you are right, the car doesn't start. Replace the computer for
$1000+. Everything is tied into that.

Though you are right, if a drive isn't recognized by the computer, replace
the motherboard!

You are right, I should have assumed the worse most complicated thing and
skipped using therepair flow chart, instead of stepping someone through
towards the end, and went right to the end. I should throw it away right
now, it is obviously worthless now after 15 years.

FWIW: I have repaired more then a few Commodore systems or drives where the
only thing wrong WAS the serial cable.

You go help him get it solved, I am finished with the topic.

"rebocardo" <rebocardo@treegone.com> wrote in message 
news:s8-dnZgeL8WNz2HbnZ2dnUVZ_tOtnZ2d@comcast.com...
>> If you turn the ignition in your car and nothing
>> happens, it's rarely the ignition switch itself.
>
> If you worked at a new car dealership, you would know better.
>
> For example:
>
> http://autopedia.com/html/FordRecall.html
>
> http://www.consumeraffairs.com/automotive/ford_focus_ignition.html
>
> I have repaired MANY vehicles where the problem was the ignition switch. 
> It
> is a $12 mechanical part that can easily be turned off and on thousands of
> times per year. Why would anyone want to check that first.

Because they rarely fail. You can point at one vehicle with a known fault 
but in general ignition switches are very reliable.

In any case a better example would be that Ramswell's car doesn't unlock, so 
he thinks the door locks are broken and replaces them when in fact the only 
problem is that the battery is dead.

>> It's not that simple.
>
> Though you are right, the car doesn't start. Replace the computer for
> $1000+. Everything is tied into that.
>
> Though you are right, if a drive isn't recognized by the computer, replace
> the motherboard!
>
> You are right, I should have assumed the worse most complicated thing and
> skipped using therepair flow chart, instead of stepping someone through
> towards the end, and went right to the end. I should throw it away right
> now, it is obviously worthless now after 15 years.

You replaced the ignition switch without first checking the battery which is 
the first logical step in diagnosing a no-start condition.
Diagnosis is all about logical steps.

> FWIW: I have repaired more then a few Commodore systems or drives where 
> the
> only thing wrong WAS the serial cable.

Right, and that is why nothing should be assumed when diagnosing. Start at 
the easiest and most obvious and work your way down (depending on symptoms).

> You go help him get it solved, I am finished with the topic.
>

This is just a discussion isn't, not an arguement? 

rebocardo wrote:

> You are right, I should have assumed the worse most complicated thing
> and skipped using therepair flow chart, instead of stepping someone
> through towards the end, and went right to the end. I should throw it
> away right now, it is obviously worthless now after 15 years.

Sigh... considers whether such a rant is worth a response... Clogmeester
has done a reasonable job thus far...

(several paragraphs typed and then deleted)

Stuff it.. it's Friday afternoon. Couldn't be bothered. Troll.

> FWIW: I have repaired more then a few Commodore systems or drives where
> the only thing wrong WAS the serial cable.

Congratulations! I'm not worthy! :O

And exactly _how_ does this relate to the "chip [that] controls the device
numbers"? You've actually backed _my_ argument.

-- 
Mark McDougall, Engineer
Virtual Logic Pty Ltd, <http://www.vl.com.au>
21-25 King St, Rockdale, 2216
Ph: +612-9599-3255 Fax: +612-9599-3266

On Sep 26, 1:18 pm, "rebocardo" <reboca...@treegone.com> wrote:
> >  One does not come up on the system AT ALL (I tried 8,9,10, & 11 and
>
> Have you tried swapping a different cable and swapping a different ROM ?
>
> Does the error channel return a code or does it hang or does it ignore it?



 Yeah I swapped out the 6526 and the 318654 ROM chips on it and it
still does nothing on boot up. I type in " @#8" and nothing happens.
Same goes for all the other device numbers I type in. They all say
"DRIVE NOT PRESENT ERROR" But when I put another drive on with the
same cabling, it works fine..

  Any ideas?

  Thanks for the help!

  Charles

On Sep 27, 8:18 am, "Clogmeester" <whowh...@andwhy.com> wrote:
> "ramswell" <shifty_bu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1190842185.620280.324290@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > OK, here's the deal.... I got TWO 1571's that are NON-FUNCTIONING and
> > I am asking for information on how to fix them
>
> > One does not come up on the system AT ALL (I tried 8,9,10, & 11 and
> > NONE WORK)! Could that be one of the 65C22 chips inside? If not, then
> > what chip controls the device numbers?
>
> Does the drive initialise when you switch it on?
> It could be any number of fault(s) if the the computer can't communicate
> with the drive at all and unlikely to have anything to do with device number
> selection and more with communication. If the CIA's are socketed try
> swapping them with known good ones.
>
> >  The second has the activity light on AT ALL TIMES and the motor
> > appears to get stuck off! Is this the stepper chip? If so, then which
> > chip is that? If not, then which chip is it?
>
> I've come across this before on a 1571 and what I did was manually move the
> drive head assembly back and forth and from then on the drive worked
> perfectly. Over time with lack of use the stepper may get stuck so moving it
> back and forth a couple of times might do the job.
>
>
>
> >  Thanks for all the help as I am MUCH MORE familiar with C64
> > diagnostics than with the 128's! Lolololo
>
> That has nothing to do with diagnosing drive faults, the 1571 works on a C64
> too!



  Tried to move the head manually on the drive with the LED stuck on,
but nothing changed *Still stuck on and nothing interfaces).

  With the other drive with the device # problem, It refuses to
reconize ANY DRIVE NUMBER at all and always gives me a "Drive Not
Present Error."

 Thanks a lot!

 Charles

On Sep 27, 7:07 pm, "Clogmeester" <whowh...@andwhy.com> wrote:
> "rebocardo" <reboca...@treegone.com> wrote in message
>
> news:s8-dnZgeL8WNz2HbnZ2dnUVZ_tOtnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> >> If you turn the ignition in your car and nothing
> >> happens, it's rarely the ignition switch itself.
>
> > If you worked at a new car dealership, you would know better.
>
> > For example:
>
> >http://autopedia.com/html/FordRecall.html
>
> >http://www.consumeraffairs.com/automotive/ford_focus_ignition.html
>
> > I have repaired MANY vehicles where the problem was the ignition switch.
> > It
> > is a $12 mechanical part that can easily be turned off and on thousands of
> > times per year. Why would anyone want to check that first.
>
> Because they rarely fail. You can point at one vehicle with a known fault
> but in general ignition switches are very reliable.
>
> In any case a better example would be that Ramswell's car doesn't unlock, so
> he thinks the door locks are broken and replaces them when in fact the only
> problem is that the battery is dead.
>
> >> It's not that simple.
>
> > Though you are right, the car doesn't start. Replace the computer for
> > $1000+. Everything is tied into that.
>
> > Though you are right, if a drive isn't recognized by the computer, replace
> > the motherboard!
>
> > You are right, I should have assumed the worse most complicated thing and
> > skipped using therepair flow chart, instead of stepping someone through
> > towards the end, and went right to the end. I should throw it away right
> > now, it is obviously worthless now after 15 years.
>
> You replaced the ignition switch without first checking the battery which is
> the first logical step in diagnosing a no-start condition.
> Diagnosis is all about logical steps.
>
> > FWIW: I have repaired more then a few Commodore systems or drives where
> > the
> > only thing wrong WAS the serial cable.
>
> Right, and that is why nothing should be assumed when diagnosing. Start at
> the easiest and most obvious and work your way down (depending on symptoms).
>
> > You go help him get it solved, I am finished with the topic.
>
> This is just a discussion isn't, not an arguement?



 Well as much as I DO APPRECIATE the help on the matter, my Commodore
is about as UNLIKE A CAR as any clotheslines I have seen in the
backyard. I don't understand the comparison as the analogies are FAR
DIFFERENT!  If anything on a car can be compared to my situation, it
would be more like the stereo is not getting power when the battery is
fully charged and plugged in (as my computer responds to all other
drives I plug in to it) and the ignition is known to be good (meaning
that the serial cable I am using also was tested and known to be good
with many other drives). Then it would be a "comparative
analogy." :):):):)


 Thanks a lot for the help thus far. I think I will desolder the 65C22
chips from the board and put sockets onto the board then replace them
both and see what happens. If that doesn't work, then I will remove
the 6502 from the board and socket that as well and replace it too!
One of those options MUST be the culprit!


  Have a good weekend!

  Charles

"ramswell" <shifty_butch@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1191033368.965415.180620@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 27, 7:07 pm, "Clogmeester" <whowh...@andwhy.com> wrote:
>> "rebocardo" <reboca...@treegone.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:s8-dnZgeL8WNz2HbnZ2dnUVZ_tOtnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>
>> >> If you turn the ignition in your car and nothing
>> >> happens, it's rarely the ignition switch itself.
>>
>> > If you worked at a new car dealership, you would know better.
>>
>> > For example:
>>
>> >http://autopedia.com/html/FordRecall.html
>>
>> >http://www.consumeraffairs.com/automotive/ford_focus_ignition.html
>>
>> > I have repaired MANY vehicles where the problem was the ignition 
>> > switch.
>> > It
>> > is a $12 mechanical part that can easily be turned off and on thousands 
>> > of
>> > times per year. Why would anyone want to check that first.
>>
>> Because they rarely fail. You can point at one vehicle with a known fault
>> but in general ignition switches are very reliable.
>>
>> In any case a better example would be that Ramswell's car doesn't unlock, 
>> so
>> he thinks the door locks are broken and replaces them when in fact the 
>> only
>> problem is that the battery is dead.
>>
>> >> It's not that simple.
>>
>> > Though you are right, the car doesn't start. Replace the computer for
>> > $1000+. Everything is tied into that.
>>
>> > Though you are right, if a drive isn't recognized by the computer, 
>> > replace
>> > the motherboard!
>>
>> > You are right, I should have assumed the worse most complicated thing 
>> > and
>> > skipped using therepair flow chart, instead of stepping someone through
>> > towards the end, and went right to the end. I should throw it away 
>> > right
>> > now, it is obviously worthless now after 15 years.
>>
>> You replaced the ignition switch without first checking the battery which 
>> is
>> the first logical step in diagnosing a no-start condition.
>> Diagnosis is all about logical steps.
>>
>> > FWIW: I have repaired more then a few Commodore systems or drives where
>> > the
>> > only thing wrong WAS the serial cable.
>>
>> Right, and that is why nothing should be assumed when diagnosing. Start 
>> at
>> the easiest and most obvious and work your way down (depending on 
>> symptoms).
>>
>> > You go help him get it solved, I am finished with the topic.
>>
>> This is just a discussion isn't, not an arguement?
>
>
>
> Well as much as I DO APPRECIATE the help on the matter, my Commodore
> is about as UNLIKE A CAR as any clotheslines I have seen in the
> backyard.

A car has reasonably complex electronics and electrical system just like a 
computer so an analogy can indeed be drawn (unlike your silly clothesline 
example)
Diagnosing follows the same basic principles regardless of what piece of 
equipment you are diagnosing, that is the point - not the analogy itself.

 I don't understand the comparison as the analogies are FAR
> DIFFERENT!  If anything on a car can be compared to my situation, it
> would be more like the stereo is not getting power when the battery is
> fully charged and plugged in (as my computer responds to all other
> drives I plug in to it) and the ignition is known to be good (meaning
> that the serial cable I am using also was tested and known to be good
> with many other drives). Then it would be a "comparative
> analogy." :):):):)

I don't expect you to understand, particularly after reading your comments 
below.

>
> Thanks a lot for the help thus far. I think I will desolder the 65C22
> chips from the board and put sockets onto the board then replace them
> both and see what happens. If that doesn't work, then I will remove
> the 6502 from the board and socket that as well and replace it too!
> One of those options MUST be the culprit!
>

Nope, it might not be one of those at all.

We call your diagnostic approach the 'shotgun' technique which is basically 
replacing parts until you have found the faulty one without having the 
skills or tools to diagnose a fault.

Good luck with that technique...

"ramswell" <shifty_butch@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1191032902.133388.177490@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 27, 8:18 am, "Clogmeester" <whowh...@andwhy.com> wrote:
>> "ramswell" <shifty_bu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1190842185.620280.324290@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > OK, here's the deal.... I got TWO 1571's that are NON-FUNCTIONING and
>> > I am asking for information on how to fix them
>>
>> > One does not come up on the system AT ALL (I tried 8,9,10, & 11 and
>> > NONE WORK)! Could that be one of the 65C22 chips inside? If not, then
>> > what chip controls the device numbers?
>>
>> Does the drive initialise when you switch it on?
>> It could be any number of fault(s) if the the computer can't communicate
>> with the drive at all and unlikely to have anything to do with device 
>> number
>> selection and more with communication. If the CIA's are socketed try
>> swapping them with known good ones.
>>
>> >  The second has the activity light on AT ALL TIMES and the motor
>> > appears to get stuck off! Is this the stepper chip? If so, then which
>> > chip is that? If not, then which chip is it?
>>
>> I've come across this before on a 1571 and what I did was manually move 
>> the
>> drive head assembly back and forth and from then on the drive worked
>> perfectly. Over time with lack of use the stepper may get stuck so moving 
>> it
>> back and forth a couple of times might do the job.
>>
>>
>>
>> >  Thanks for all the help as I am MUCH MORE familiar with C64
>> > diagnostics than with the 128's! Lolololo
>>
>> That has nothing to do with diagnosing drive faults, the 1571 works on a 
>> C64
>> too!
>
>
>
>  Tried to move the head manually on the drive with the LED stuck on,
> but nothing changed *Still stuck on and nothing interfaces).



>  With the other drive with the device # problem, It refuses to
> reconize ANY DRIVE NUMBER at all and always gives me a "Drive Not
> Present Error."
>
>

Clearly it's not communicating which is the real problem, the drive number 
is irrelevant so if the cable is fine check both IEC sockets and  follow the 
schematics back from there.

You know how to read schematics right?

On Sep 28, 7:59 pm, "Clogmeester" <whowh...@andwhy.com> wrote:
> "ramswell" <shifty_bu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1191032902.133388.177490@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Sep 27, 8:18 am, "Clogmeester" <whowh...@andwhy.com> wrote:
> >> "ramswell" <shifty_bu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:1190842185.620280.324290@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > OK, here's the deal.... I got TWO 1571's that are NON-FUNCTIONING and
> >> > I am asking for information on how to fix them
>
> >> > One does not come up on the system AT ALL (I tried 8,9,10, & 11 and
> >> > NONE WORK)! Could that be one of the 65C22 chips inside? If not, then
> >> > what chip controls the device numbers?
>
> >> Does the drive initialise when you switch it on?
> >> It could be any number of fault(s) if the the computer can't communicate
> >> with the drive at all and unlikely to have anything to do with device
> >> number
> >> selection and more with communication. If the CIA's are socketed try
> >> swapping them with known good ones.
>
> >> >  The second has the activity light on AT ALL TIMES and the motor
> >> > appears to get stuck off! Is this the stepper chip? If so, then which
> >> > chip is that? If not, then which chip is it?
>
> >> I've come across this before on a 1571 and what I did was manually move
> >> the
> >> drive head assembly back and forth and from then on the drive worked
> >> perfectly. Over time with lack of use the stepper may get stuck so moving
> >> it
> >> back and forth a couple of times might do the job.
>
> >> >  Thanks for all the help as I am MUCH MORE familiar with C64
> >> > diagnostics than with the 128's! Lolololo
>
> >> That has nothing to do with diagnosing drive faults, the 1571 works on a
> >> C64
> >> too!
>
> >  Tried to move the head manually on the drive with the LED stuck on,
> > but nothing changed *Still stuck on and nothing interfaces).
> >  With the other drive with the device # problem, It refuses to
> > reconize ANY DRIVE NUMBER at all and always gives me a "Drive Not
> > Present Error."
>
> Clearly it's not communicating which is the real problem, the drive number
> is irrelevant so if the cable is fine check both IEC sockets and  follow the
> schematics back from there.
>
> You know how to read schematics right?



 Sure do! That's how I came to the conclusion that I came up
with. :):):):) Starting at the end of the circuit going backwards
compnent by component testing each one until you find the faulty one.
Although I don't necessarily consider that the "SHOTGUN APPROACH," it
is how I learned to do it in my Electronics training... :):):):)


  Thanks a lot! Just trying to get a bit of input before delving in.


   Charles

"ramswell" <shifty_butch@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1191043885.086061.270340@n39g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 28, 7:59 pm, "Clogmeester" <whowh...@andwhy.com> wrote:
>> "ramswell" <shifty_bu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1191032902.133388.177490@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Sep 27, 8:18 am, "Clogmeester" <whowh...@andwhy.com> wrote:
>> >> "ramswell" <shifty_bu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >>news:1190842185.620280.324290@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >> > OK, here's the deal.... I got TWO 1571's that are NON-FUNCTIONING 
>> >> > and
>> >> > I am asking for information on how to fix them
>>
>> >> > One does not come up on the system AT ALL (I tried 8,9,10, & 11 and
>> >> > NONE WORK)! Could that be one of the 65C22 chips inside? If not, 
>> >> > then
>> >> > what chip controls the device numbers?
>>
>> >> Does the drive initialise when you switch it on?
>> >> It could be any number of fault(s) if the the computer can't 
>> >> communicate
>> >> with the drive at all and unlikely to have anything to do with device
>> >> number
>> >> selection and more with communication. If the CIA's are socketed try
>> >> swapping them with known good ones.
>>
>> >> >  The second has the activity light on AT ALL TIMES and the motor
>> >> > appears to get stuck off! Is this the stepper chip? If so, then 
>> >> > which
>> >> > chip is that? If not, then which chip is it?
>>
>> >> I've come across this before on a 1571 and what I did was manually 
>> >> move
>> >> the
>> >> drive head assembly back and forth and from then on the drive worked
>> >> perfectly. Over time with lack of use the stepper may get stuck so 
>> >> moving
>> >> it
>> >> back and forth a couple of times might do the job.
>>
>> >> >  Thanks for all the help as I am MUCH MORE familiar with C64
>> >> > diagnostics than with the 128's! Lolololo
>>
>> >> That has nothing to do with diagnosing drive faults, the 1571 works on 
>> >> a
>> >> C64
>> >> too!
>>
>> >  Tried to move the head manually on the drive with the LED stuck on,
>> > but nothing changed *Still stuck on and nothing interfaces).
>> >  With the other drive with the device # problem, It refuses to
>> > reconize ANY DRIVE NUMBER at all and always gives me a "Drive Not
>> > Present Error."
>>
>> Clearly it's not communicating which is the real problem, the drive 
>> number
>> is irrelevant so if the cable is fine check both IEC sockets and  follow 
>> the
>> schematics back from there.
>>
>> You know how to read schematics right?
>
>
>
> Sure do! That's how I came to the conclusion that I came up
> with. :):):):) Starting at the end of the circuit going backwards
> compnent by component testing each one until you find the faulty one.
> Although I don't necessarily consider that the "SHOTGUN APPROACH," it
> is how I learned to do it in my Electronics training... :):):):)
>

That isn't 'shotgunning' but the way you worded your comments sounded like 
you were 'shotgunning' it.
What level electronics training have you done?

>  Thanks a lot! Just trying to get a bit of input before delving in.
>

Sure, no harm in asking :-) Do you think it's really worth the time and 
effort though or are you doing it just for experience and fun of it?

Clogmeester wrote:

>> Sure do! That's how I came to the conclusion that I came up
>> with. :):):):) Starting at the end of the circuit going backwards
>> compnent by component testing each one until you find the faulty one.

FWIW, here's what I'd do - coming in cold...

1. Check serial cable (which you've done)
2. Check power rails in the drive, including the VCC pin of 6502, ROM, 6522 
(dead power supply?)
3. Check 6502 clock signal (dead clock circuit?)
4. Check serial atn, data lines with a CRO (eg. idle not pulled high? not 
driven to full voltage? any response?)
5. If CRO shows drive is receiving (at 6522) but isn't responding (eg. check 
output of 6522), check for any activity on 6502 A,D buses (dead 6502? bad 
ROM?). Check I/O & interrupt lines from 6522 doing serial comms on ATN (bad 
6522?).

Of course, a lot of this assumes you have access to a CRO. If not, then 
you're probably reduced to educated 'stabs in the dark' at step 3. as you 
have outlined.

Regards,

-- 
|              Mark McDougall                | "Electrical Engineers do it
|  <http://members.iinet.net.au/~msmcdoug>   |   with less resistance!"

Mark McDougall wrote:

> Clogmeester wrote:

Oops, Clogmeester didn't write that at all... sorry Clogmeester!

Ramswell wrote it...

Regards,

-- 
|              Mark McDougall                | "Electrical Engineers do it
|  <http://members.iinet.net.au/~msmcdoug>   |   with less resistance!"

On Sep 29, 5:12 am, Mark McDougall <msmcd...@no.spam.iinet> wrote:
> Mark McDougall wrote:
> > Clogmeester wrote:
>
> Oops, Clogmeester didn't write that at all... sorry Clogmeester!
>
> Ramswell wrote it...
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> |              Mark McDougall                | "Electrical Engineers do it
> |  <http://members.iinet.net.au/~msmcdoug>   |   with less resistance!"



  OOPS! I forgot to mention to you guys that I ALSO CHECKED the power
supply by "Swapping it out" with a known good one and got the same
results! That would mean then that the problem would DEFINATELY BE
with either the 6502 or the 65C22 then,  correct?

  And to Cloggie, "Yes, I'm just messing around to "Kill Time.""
Lololol


   Charles

"Mark McDougall" <msmcdoug@no.spam.iinet> wrote in message 
news:46fe40d8$0$4576$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> Mark McDougall wrote:
>
>> Clogmeester wrote:
>
> Oops, Clogmeester didn't write that at all... sorry Clogmeester!
>

That's OK.

I would just like to add that a logic probe makes for a handy tool if a CRO 
isn't available.

One of my old bosses taught me how to use headphones through a capacitor to 
listen to signals.

Where there is a will... 

"Mark McDougall" wrote ...
>
> Of course, a lot of this assumes you have access to a CRO. If not, then 
> you're probably reduced to educated 'stabs in the dark' at step 3. as you 
> have outlined.

Your reference to a CRO threw me at first.  Guess I am just too "old school" 
:-)

Then it dawned on me what CRO stands for.  Back in the late '50s when I first 
became aware of such a device, and the early '60s when I first used one, we 
just called them "O"scopes.    :-)
-- 
Best regards,

Sam Gillett

Change is inevitable,
except from vending machines! 

"Sam Gillett" <sgillettnospam@diespammergte.net> wrote in message 
news:R2BLi.676$P06.360@trnddc05...
>
> "Mark McDougall" wrote ...
>>
>> Of course, a lot of this assumes you have access to a CRO. If not, then 
>> you're probably reduced to educated 'stabs in the dark' at step 3. as you 
>> have outlined.
>
> Your reference to a CRO threw me at first.  Guess I am just too "old 
> school" :-)
>
> Then it dawned on me what CRO stands for.  Back in the late '50s when I 
> first became aware of such a device, and the early '60s when I first used 
> one, we just called them "O"scopes.    :-)
> -- 

CRO is an 'old school' reference to the Cathode Ray Oscilloscope around 
here.

On Sep 29, 4:32 pm, "Clompmeester" <whowh...@andwhy.com> wrote:
> "Sam Gillett" <sgillettnos...@diespammergte.net> wrote in message
>
> news:R2BLi.676$P06.360@trnddc05...
>
>
>
> > "Mark McDougall" wrote ...
>
> >> Of course, a lot of this assumes you have access to a CRO. If not, then
> >> you're probably reduced to educated 'stabs in the dark' at step 3. as you
> >> have outlined.
>
> > Your reference to a CRO threw me at first.  Guess I am just too "old
> > school" :-)
>
> > Then it dawned on me what CRO stands for.  Back in the late '50s when I
> > first became aware of such a device, and the early '60s when I first used
> > one, we just called them "O"scopes.    :-)
> > --
>
> CRO is an 'old school' reference to the Cathode Ray Oscilloscope around
> here.



 As ocsilloscopes are expensive here and I have a VERY LIMITED amount
of work space, that woulden't work out for me anyways; however, I DO
HAVE A LOGIC PROBE by Knight Industries that I found a few years back
in a pile of old electronics "rubbish." All it needed was a 2n2222
transistor and it appears to work fine.
 Now the problem here is that I not only have never used one, but I
haven't even seen anyone else use one before either! So I have NO IDEA
of how to work it!!!  Any suggesstions on how to use it to make
diagnosis a bit easier?

  That's the "REAL" problem. Lololol


   Charles

"ramswell" <shifty_butch@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1191118216.773292.76940@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 29, 4:32 pm, "Clompmeester" <whowh...@andwhy.com> wrote:
>> "Sam Gillett" <sgillettnos...@diespammergte.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:R2BLi.676$P06.360@trnddc05...
>>
>>
>>
>> > "Mark McDougall" wrote ...
>>
>> >> Of course, a lot of this assumes you have access to a CRO. If not, 
>> >> then
>> >> you're probably reduced to educated 'stabs in the dark' at step 3. as 
>> >> you
>> >> have outlined.
>>
>> > Your reference to a CRO threw me at first.  Guess I am just too "old
>> > school" :-)
>>
>> > Then it dawned on me what CRO stands for.  Back in the late '50s when I
>> > first became aware of such a device, and the early '60s when I first 
>> > used
>> > one, we just called them "O"scopes.    :-)
>> > --
>>
>> CRO is an 'old school' reference to the Cathode Ray Oscilloscope around
>> here.
>
>
>
> As ocsilloscopes are expensive here and I have a VERY LIMITED amount
> of work space, that woulden't work out for me anyways; however, I DO
> HAVE A LOGIC PROBE by Knight Industries that I found a few years back
> in a pile of old electronics "rubbish." All it needed was a 2n2222
> transistor and it appears to work fine.
> Now the problem here is that I not only have never used one, but I
> haven't even seen anyone else use one before either! So I have NO IDEA
> of how to work it!!!  Any suggesstions on how to use it to make
> diagnosis a bit easier?
>
>  That's the "REAL" problem. Lololol

The real problem is that you refuse to use Google.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic_probe

"Clompmeester" wrote ...
>
> "Sam Gillett" <sgillettnospam@diespammergte.net> wrote in message 
> news:R2BLi.676$P06.360@trnddc05...
>>
>> "Mark McDougall" wrote ...
>>>
>>> Of course, a lot of this assumes you have access to a CRO. If not, then 
>>> you're probably reduced to educated 'stabs in the dark' at step 3. as you 
>>> have outlined.
>>
>> Your reference to a CRO threw me at first.  Guess I am just too "old 
>> school" :-)
>>
>> Then it dawned on me what CRO stands for.  Back in the late '50s when I 
>> first became aware of such a device, and the early '60s when I first used 
>> one, we just called them "O"scopes.    :-)
>
> CRO is an 'old school' reference to the Cathode Ray Oscilloscope around 
> here.

CRO can't be too "old school" as back when I first used one the CR part would 
have been redundant and unnecessary, because back in those days there was no 
such thing as an oscilloscope that did not use a cathode ray tube as the 
primary display.

There were some recording oscilloscopes that gave you the option of turning 
on an ink pen device to record results on a strip of graph paper.  They were 
mostly used in research labs.  The recording O-scopes were very expensive and 
seldom (if at all) used in repair work or troubleshooting.
-- 
Best regards,

Sam Gillett

Change is inevitable,
except from vending machines! 

"Klompmeester" wrote ...
>
> "ramswell" <shifty_butch@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1191118216.773292.76940@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> As ocsilloscopes are expensive here and I have a VERY LIMITED amount
>> of work space, that woulden't work out for me anyways; however, I DO
>> HAVE A LOGIC PROBE by Knight Industries that I found a few years back
>> in a pile of old electronics "rubbish." All it needed was a 2n2222
>> transistor and it appears to work fine.
>> Now the problem here is that I not only have never used one, but I
>> haven't even seen anyone else use one before either! So I have NO IDEA
>> of how to work it!!!  Any suggesstions on how to use it to make
>> diagnosis a bit easier?
>>
>>  That's the "REAL" problem. Lololol
>
> The real problem is that you refuse to use Google.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic_probe
>
He doesn't have to use Google to get there.  Windows Live Search returned the
same link on the first page of results.  I didn't try it, but would guess
that most other search engines would return usable results on a search for
"logic probe" also.

Charles, search engines can be a useful tool at times... really!    ;-)
-- 
Best regards,

Sam Gillett

Why is the third hand on a watch
called the second hand?

"Sam Gillett" <sgillettnospam@diespammergte.net> wrote in message 
news:U0GLi.17219$Im1.5836@trnddc01...
>
> "Klompmeester" wrote ...
>>
>> "ramswell" <shifty_butch@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1191118216.773292.76940@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> As ocsilloscopes are expensive here and I have a VERY LIMITED amount
>>> of work space, that woulden't work out for me anyways; however, I DO
>>> HAVE A LOGIC PROBE by Knight Industries that I found a few years back
>>> in a pile of old electronics "rubbish." All it needed was a 2n2222
>>> transistor and it appears to work fine.
>>> Now the problem here is that I not only have never used one, but I
>>> haven't even seen anyone else use one before either! So I have NO IDEA
>>> of how to work it!!!  Any suggesstions on how to use it to make
>>> diagnosis a bit easier?
>>>
>>>  That's the "REAL" problem. Lololol
>>
>> The real problem is that you refuse to use Google.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic_probe
>>
> He doesn't have to use Google to get there.  Windows Live Search returned 
> the
> same link on the first page of results.  I didn't try it, but would guess
> that most other search engines would return usable results on a search for
> "logic probe" also.
>
> Charles, search engines can be a useful tool at times... really!    ;-)

Well, yeah, I mean any search engine when I say Google, all will return 
useable results as you say.

I'm sure he's prepared another excuse though... ;-)

"Sam Gillett" <sgillettnospam@diespammergte.net> wrote in message 
news:U0GLi.17220$Im1.12714@trnddc01...
>
> "Clompmeester" wrote ...
>>
>> "Sam Gillett" <sgillettnospam@diespammergte.net> wrote in message 
>> news:R2BLi.676$P06.360@trnddc05...
>>>
>>> "Mark McDougall" wrote ...
>>>>
>>>> Of course, a lot of this assumes you have access to a CRO. If not, then 
>>>> you're probably reduced to educated 'stabs in the dark' at step 3. as 
>>>> you have outlined.
>>>
>>> Your reference to a CRO threw me at first.  Guess I am just too "old 
>>> school" :-)
>>>
>>> Then it dawned on me what CRO stands for.  Back in the late '50s when I 
>>> first became aware of such a device, and the early '60s when I first 
>>> used one, we just called them "O"scopes.    :-)
>>
>> CRO is an 'old school' reference to the Cathode Ray Oscilloscope around 
>> here.
>
> CRO can't be too "old school" as back when I first used one the CR part 
> would have been redundant and unnecessary, because back in those days 
> there was no such thing as an oscilloscope that did not use a cathode ray 
> tube as the primary display.

The inventor Karl Ferdinand Braun called it a 'CRT oscilloscope' in 1897 so 
you can see how that was shortened to CRO.


> There were some recording oscilloscopes that gave you the option of 
> turning on an ink pen device to record results on a strip of graph paper. 
> They were mostly used in research labs.  The recording O-scopes were very 
> expensive and seldom (if at all) used in repair work or troubleshooting.
> -- 

O-scope is foreign to me, so I dare usage CRO, O-scope, scope are used 
interchangeably but one may be used more dependant on locality. 

On Sep 29, 10:21 pm, "Klompmeester" <whowh...@andwhy.com> wrote:
> "Sam Gillett" <sgillettnos...@diespammergte.net> wrote in message
>
> news:U0GLi.17219$Im1.5836@trnddc01...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Klompmeester" wrote ...
>
> >> "ramswell" <shifty_bu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>news:1191118216.773292.76940@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>> As ocsilloscopes are expensive here and I have a VERY LIMITED amount
> >>> of work space, that woulden't work out for me anyways; however, I DO
> >>> HAVE A LOGIC PROBE by Knight Industries that I found a few years back
> >>> in a pile of old electronics "rubbish." All it needed was a 2n2222
> >>> transistor and it appears to work fine.
> >>> Now the problem here is that I not only have never used one, but I
> >>> haven't even seen anyone else use one before either! So I have NO IDEA
> >>> of how to work it!!!  Any suggesstions on how to use it to make
> >>> diagnosis a bit easier?
>
> >>>  That's the "REAL" problem. Lololol
>
> >> The real problem is that you refuse to use Google.
>
> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic_probe
>
> > He doesn't have to use Google to get there.  Windows Live Search returned
> > the
> > same link on the first page of results.  I didn't try it, but would guess
> > that most other search engines would return usable results on a search for
> > "logic probe" also.
>
> > Charles, search engines can be a useful tool at times... really!    ;-)
>
> Well, yeah, I mean any search engine when I say Google, all will return
> useable results as you say.
>
> I'm sure he's prepared another excuse though... ;-)



  Ok, now I know HOW IT WORKS." and thats just wonderful. Now HOW DO I
WORK IT?


  Heheheh


 Thanks for preparing Sam for my "NEW EXCUSE."

 <QUAGMIRE>

 Charles

"ramswell" <shifty_butch@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1191137656.948536.4710@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 29, 10:21 pm, "Klompmeester" <whowh...@andwhy.com> wrote:
>> "Sam Gillett" <sgillettnos...@diespammergte.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:U0GLi.17219$Im1.5836@trnddc01...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > "Klompmeester" wrote ...
>>
>> >> "ramswell" <shifty_bu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >>news:1191118216.773292.76940@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >>> As ocsilloscopes are expensive here and I have a VERY LIMITED amount
>> >>> of work space, that woulden't work out for me anyways; however, I DO
>> >>> HAVE A LOGIC PROBE by Knight Industries that I found a few years back
>> >>> in a pile of old electronics "rubbish." All it needed was a 2n2222
>> >>> transistor and it appears to work fine.
>> >>> Now the problem here is that I not only have never used one, but I
>> >>> haven't even seen anyone else use one before either! So I have NO 
>> >>> IDEA
>> >>> of how to work it!!!  Any suggesstions on how to use it to make
>> >>> diagnosis a bit easier?
>>
>> >>>  That's the "REAL" problem. Lololol
>>
>> >> The real problem is that you refuse to use Google.
>>
>> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic_probe
>>
>> > He doesn't have to use Google to get there.  Windows Live Search 
>> > returned
>> > the
>> > same link on the first page of results.  I didn't try it, but would 
>> > guess
>> > that most other search engines would return usable results on a search 
>> > for
>> > "logic probe" also.
>>
>> > Charles, search engines can be a useful tool at times... really!    ;-)
>>
>> Well, yeah, I mean any search engine when I say Google, all will return
>> useable results as you say.
>>
>> I'm sure he's prepared another excuse though... ;-)
>
>
>
>  Ok, now I know HOW IT WORKS." and thats just wonderful. Now HOW DO I
> WORK IT?
>

It's pretty self explanatory actually, if you know how it works.

Do you understand anything at all about logic gates and digital electronics 
in general?

I thought you had electronics training... hmmmm. 

On Sep 30, 3:00 am, "Klompmeester" <whowh...@andwhy.com> wrote:
> "ramswell" <shifty_bu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1191137656.948536.4710@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Sep 29, 10:21 pm, "Klompmeester" <whowh...@andwhy.com> wrote:
> >> "Sam Gillett" <sgillettnos...@diespammergte.net> wrote in message
>
> >>news:U0GLi.17219$Im1.5836@trnddc01...
>
> >> > "Klompmeester" wrote ...
>
> >> >> "ramswell" <shifty_bu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >>news:1191118216.773292.76940@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> >>> As ocsilloscopes are expensive here and I have a VERY LIMITED amount
> >> >>> of work space, that woulden't work out for me anyways; however, I DO
> >> >>> HAVE A LOGIC PROBE by Knight Industries that I found a few years back
> >> >>> in a pile of old electronics "rubbish." All it needed was a 2n2222
> >> >>> transistor and it appears to work fine.
> >> >>> Now the problem here is that I not only have never used one, but I
> >> >>> haven't even seen anyone else use one before either! So I have NO
> >> >>> IDEA
> >> >>> of how to work it!!!  Any suggesstions on how to use it to make
> >> >>> diagnosis a bit easier?
>
> >> >>>  That's the "REAL" problem. Lololol
>
> >> >> The real problem is that you refuse to use Google.
>
> >> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic_probe
>
> >> > He doesn't have to use Google to get there.  Windows Live Search
> >> > returned
> >> > the
> >> > same link on the first page of results.  I didn't try it, but would
> >> > guess
> >> > that most other search engines would return usable results on a search
> >> > for
> >> > "logic probe" also.
>
> >> > Charles, search engines can be a useful tool at times... really!    ;-)
>
> >> Well, yeah, I mean any search engine when I say Google, all will return
> >> useable results as you say.
>
> >> I'm sure he's prepared another excuse though... ;-)
>
> >  Ok, now I know HOW IT WORKS." and thats just wonderful. Now HOW DO I
> > WORK IT?
>
> It's pretty self explanatory actually, if you know how it works.
>
> Do you understand anything at all about logic gates and digital electronics
> in general?
>
> I thought you had electronics training... hmmmm.



 Gates and latches I will have to "refresh" myself with as it's been
quite some time since studying them and I have forgotten much over the
years, however, most of my "training" is through Multi-Meters and
Oscilloscopes, as I had mentioned previously.

  I'll see what I can find on the subject someplace.

  Thanks for the help! You've been simply "MARVELOUS!"


  Charles

"ramswell" <shifty_butch@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1191147625.492385.16020@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 30, 3:00 am, "Klompmeester" <whowh...@andwhy.com> wrote:
>> "ramswell" <shifty_bu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1191137656.948536.4710@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Sep 29, 10:21 pm, "Klompmeester" <whowh...@andwhy.com> wrote:
>> >> "Sam Gillett" <sgillettnos...@diespammergte.net> wrote in message
>>
>> >>news:U0GLi.17219$Im1.5836@trnddc01...
>>
>> >> > "Klompmeester" wrote ...
>>
>> >> >> "ramswell" <shifty_bu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> >>news:1191118216.773292.76940@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >> >>> As ocsilloscopes are expensive here and I have a VERY LIMITED 
>> >> >>> amount
>> >> >>> of work space, that woulden't work out for me anyways; however, I 
>> >> >>> DO
>> >> >>> HAVE A LOGIC PROBE by Knight Industries that I found a few years 
>> >> >>> back
>> >> >>> in a pile of old electronics "rubbish." All it needed was a 2n2222
>> >> >>> transistor and it appears to work fine.
>> >> >>> Now the problem here is that I not only have never used one, but I
>> >> >>> haven't even seen anyone else use one before either! So I have NO
>> >> >>> IDEA
>> >> >>> of how to work it!!!  Any suggesstions on how to use it to make
>> >> >>> diagnosis a bit easier?
>>
>> >> >>>  That's the "REAL" problem. Lololol
>>
>> >> >> The real problem is that you refuse to use Google.
>>
>> >> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic_probe
>>
>> >> > He doesn't have to use Google to get there.  Windows Live Search
>> >> > returned
>> >> > the
>> >> > same link on the first page of results.  I didn't try it, but would
>> >> > guess
>> >> > that most other search engines would return usable results on a 
>> >> > search
>> >> > for
>> >> > "logic probe" also.
>>
>> >> > Charles, search engines can be a useful tool at times... really! 
>> >> > ;-)
>>
>> >> Well, yeah, I mean any search engine when I say Google, all will 
>> >> return
>> >> useable results as you say.
>>
>> >> I'm sure he's prepared another excuse though... ;-)
>>
>> >  Ok, now I know HOW IT WORKS." and thats just wonderful. Now HOW DO I
>> > WORK IT?
>>
>> It's pretty self explanatory actually, if you know how it works.
>>
>> Do you understand anything at all about logic gates and digital 
>> electronics
>> in general?
>>
>> I thought you had electronics training... hmmmm.
>
>
>
> Gates and latches I will have to "refresh" myself with as it's been
> quite some time since studying them and I have forgotten much over the
> years, however, most of my "training" is through Multi-Meters and
> Oscilloscopes, as I had mentioned previously.
>
>  I'll see what I can find on the subject someplace.
>
>  Thanks for the help! You've been simply "MARVELOUS!"
>

If you truly know how to work a CRO then you will have no trouble using a 
simple device like a logic probe.

In news:1191118216.773292.76940@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com,
ramswell <shifty_butch@hotmail.com> wrote:

> ...I DO HAVE A LOGIC PROBE by Knight Industries
> ...it appears to work fine.
> ...I have NO IDEA of how to work it!!!
> Any suggesstions on how to use it to make diagnosis a bit easier?

So you do essentially know how it works (showing static or pulsing logic
levels), but are wondering what diagnostic chains to follow through the
1571?

A SAMS Photofact for the 1571 would probably be very useful.  I haven't seen
the one for the 1571, but they usually have expected voltage level legends
and little scope-trace photos appended to the schematic, along with other
diagnostic information.

SAMS still publishes that Photofact, # CD-12, and sells it for $20:

http://www.samswebsite.com/photofact/pf_search.asp?MOD=1571&TYPE=LIKE&Search=Search

Brian
-- 

On Sep 30, 10:52 pm, "Brian Ketterling" <tweel6...@no-potted-meat-
products-peoplepc.com> wrote:
> Innews:1191118216.773292.76940@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com,
>
> ramswell <shifty_bu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > ...I DO HAVE A LOGIC PROBE by Knight Industries
> > ...it appears to work fine.
> > ...I have NO IDEA of how to work it!!!
> > Any suggesstions on how to use it to make diagnosis a bit easier?
>
> So you do essentially know how it works (showing static or pulsing logic
> levels), but are wondering what diagnostic chains to follow through the
> 1571?
>
> A SAMS Photofact for the 1571 would probably be very useful.  I haven't seen
> the one for the 1571, but they usually have expected voltage level legends
> and little scope-trace photos appended to the schematic, along with other
> diagnostic information.
>
> SAMS still publishes that Photofact, # CD-12, and sells it for $20:
>
> http://www.samswebsite.com/photofact/pf_search.asp?MOD=1571&TYPE=LIKE...
>
> Brian
> --



 Hummmm, sounks like a possibility....<; I might have to look into
that aspect and see what happens there.

  Thanks a lot, Brian! :):):):)


  Charles