16-06-2012, 12:22 PM
Ok, for the record this is the chain of events:
The original listing for the item consisted of one general view picture and a description list of what it does, what it comes with, and what it doesn't come with, included in the description was a statement to say that it was working, my wife bid on my behalf based on the picture and description in the listing...she won the auction.
The following day the same type of item was listed by the same seller with the same picture as was used in the 1st listing (the one my wife won) However there was an addition in the description to say there was a 30 day warranty with the item.
My wife contacted the seller regarding her purchase as to why on the face of it the same item was being re listed.
The seller replied to my wife saying that it was a seperate listing as he had two of these units.
The parcel duly arrived and the item was professionaly packed, the unit as received was not of the same apperance as the one in the original listing as it did not have the MI logo in the top righthand corner like the one in the listing photograph, at the time of unpacking that did not particularly concern me as the overall cosmetic condition was reasonable for its age and it was clearly an early production TF2700
I eventually sourced a battery for it and tried it out, initialy I only connected a high value resistor across the bridge terminals the bridge was balanced and the results noted, they checked out fine, it was only later when I tried it out on the lower multiplier ranges that I noticed a problem I decided to take the cover off and see if I could find the fault, it was relativly quick to find, a 2.4 R had gone o/c I soldered a temp fix across the resistor and the other ranges came to life. I thought that was it until later I discovered that obtaining a Q value for inductance at the test frequency was not possible, it was then that I discovered that the 17k section of the loss balance pot was o/c at one end of its track, that I have yet to attempt to repair.
If you read the first paragraph of this post you will probably come to the same conclusion as I have.
Lawrence.
The original listing for the item consisted of one general view picture and a description list of what it does, what it comes with, and what it doesn't come with, included in the description was a statement to say that it was working, my wife bid on my behalf based on the picture and description in the listing...she won the auction.
The following day the same type of item was listed by the same seller with the same picture as was used in the 1st listing (the one my wife won) However there was an addition in the description to say there was a 30 day warranty with the item.
My wife contacted the seller regarding her purchase as to why on the face of it the same item was being re listed.
The seller replied to my wife saying that it was a seperate listing as he had two of these units.
The parcel duly arrived and the item was professionaly packed, the unit as received was not of the same apperance as the one in the original listing as it did not have the MI logo in the top righthand corner like the one in the listing photograph, at the time of unpacking that did not particularly concern me as the overall cosmetic condition was reasonable for its age and it was clearly an early production TF2700
I eventually sourced a battery for it and tried it out, initialy I only connected a high value resistor across the bridge terminals the bridge was balanced and the results noted, they checked out fine, it was only later when I tried it out on the lower multiplier ranges that I noticed a problem I decided to take the cover off and see if I could find the fault, it was relativly quick to find, a 2.4 R had gone o/c I soldered a temp fix across the resistor and the other ranges came to life. I thought that was it until later I discovered that obtaining a Q value for inductance at the test frequency was not possible, it was then that I discovered that the 17k section of the loss balance pot was o/c at one end of its track, that I have yet to attempt to repair.
If you read the first paragraph of this post you will probably come to the same conclusion as I have.
Lawrence.
