I think we're too quick to write off older diagnostic gear

Last week, I was working on a 2012 iMac with a weird power cycling issue. Everyone at the shop said to just hook it up to the new $5000 analyzer and let it run the full suite. I mean, I get it, it's fast. But I pulled out my old Fluke 87V from like 8 years ago and started checking the board voltages manually. Took me maybe 20 minutes, but I found a tiny voltage drop on a specific power rail that the new machine's auto-test just flagged as 'within spec'. It was a bad cap hiding in plain sight. I feel like we rely on the fancy gear to think for us sometimes, and we lose the skill of actually following the circuit. Has anyone else found a case where the old hands-on method caught something the new box missed?

4 comments

4 Comments

corap211mo ago

Following the circuit" is the real skill.

the_tessa1mo agoMost Upvoted

Yeah, staying on track like @corap21 said is the hardest part for me too.

nancyjones1mo ago

Actually, that's a really good point from @corap21. For the longest time I was sure the big trick was just finding the circuit in the first place, you know? But you're totally right. Following it through, staying on track even when it gets messy or boring, that's the whole game. It changed how I look at a lot of things now. Getting started feels easy next to actually sticking with the path.

the_piper1mo ago

Spot on about following the circuit like @corap21 said. The new gear gives you a map, but it can't teach you how to walk the trail and notice the loose rocks. That hands-on feel for where the problem actually lives just comes from doing it the slow way sometimes.