pbirkel@gmail.com
Veteran Member
I answered the more general-case question, not your specific use-case. Mea culpa. However following the same path I'd ask whether you could get suitable instrumentation-data from an operational HP2116B or borrow a module that you could use to obtain such data yourself in order to reverse-engineer the boundary/interface requirements on each regulator board. Not that I have one to offer, but it's an approach to consider. Send out a call for known HP2116B units?I think I see what you mean. I think you mean the system level. The PSU as one single unit which (hopefully) has a detailed spec. One can maybe workout a spec on the basis of the functional description and some curves that show sequencing and tables of voltage tolerances. Perhaps.
My intention from the beginning was to replace as little as possible. Just the regulator boards which control the series pass transistors. The transformer, the bulk capacitors, the output smoothing capacitors, the series pass transistors and crowbar are left as is. Just the regulator module is going to be replaced somehow. If I get hold of the regulator boards that are missing I just put them in place and go. Thus my interface with the world is what surround these two cards. And then a lot of the requirements come from various design decision they made back then. For example: we have Ge-transistors (Q33), lets make them the current limit sense circuitry by having a 0.2V drop over the sense resistor when they start to conduct or use a Ge -transistor (Q34) with some diodes to create the power sequencing that doesn't allow +4.5V until -2V has reached correct level.
Since I am not intending to replace the current sense resistor or the Ge pass transistors at at this point I need create something that correctly interfaces all those things. I don't think I can find a HP spec for that on the unit level. Perhaps they have a detailed system level spec (not sure about that either - a lot is just implied by the schematic).
So ... I think that you've come to the point of answering your original question with "exact replica" because there's apparently no other way to discern/divine the interface requirements other than setting up a SPICE simulation wherever it becomes necessary to substitute a different part than in the original schematic. You'll certainly learn an awful lot about the design that way :-}.On the other hand if I do start to replace various parts exterior to the regulator board, like replacing all the pass transistors with modern PMOS parts (which I gave some thought initially - before I concluded that it was possible to find 2N2156) , I will be on the slippery slope towards replace everything with Chinese switchers.
IMO the nature of the three sorts of PS designs reflects the corporate objectives/experience. At that point in time HP was essentially a company of analog instrumentation engineers, so PS design was simply another exercise in quality analog design and gold-plated (literally) PCBs. DEC sprang from a principally digital design community; their PS designs were generally robust and mechanically well-engineered but nothing exceptional. DG was founded on the premise that corner-cutting in all aspects of design/implementation was necessary in order to achieve a cost/performance ratio that would yield success in breaking into the OEM market that DEC already held. Their PS designs reflected those concerns. It's amazing how many and how often field modifications happened throughout the early Nova-line systems. One could even declare that they pioneered the (later) Microsoft V1.0 software scenario where getting a product into the field for feedback and rapid modification was the whole point. Their field engineers must have had a lot of "fun" keeping systems operational and well-patched in the early years. Today we have other catch-phrases for the same philosophy :-}.And actually I sort of would like to open it up and show the quality of the HP design and engineering which is something special compared to DEC or a flimsy DG.




