Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Will Deoxit on a circuit board cause problems?
408 views
Skip to first unread message
olds...@tubes.com
Feb 6, 2018, 5:06:11 PM2/6/18
to
Will Deoxit on a circuit board cause problems? In other words, is it
conductive if it's touching components?
I had to spray some switches that had a very tiny hole in a plastic
covering, so the Deoxit got all over the board. I removed most of it
with tissue paper, but there are traces of it beneath chips and other
components, which is difficult to remove. I have also used some Q-tips
to get rid of as much as I can, but I cant get all of it.
Will it evaporate over time? I wont be plugging this device in for at
least 24 hours.
Normally it's not this messy, but in this case there was no easy way to
get it into those switches, which badly needed to be cleaned. I wish
they would not seal switches like this. The old style switches with open
ends were so much easier to clean.
conductive if it's touching components?
I had to spray some switches that had a very tiny hole in a plastic
covering, so the Deoxit got all over the board. I removed most of it
with tissue paper, but there are traces of it beneath chips and other
components, which is difficult to remove. I have also used some Q-tips
to get rid of as much as I can, but I cant get all of it.
Will it evaporate over time? I wont be plugging this device in for at
least 24 hours.
Normally it's not this messy, but in this case there was no easy way to
get it into those switches, which badly needed to be cleaned. I wish
they would not seal switches like this. The old style switches with open
ends were so much easier to clean.
whit3rd
Feb 6, 2018, 6:43:40 PM2/6/18
to
On Tuesday, February 6, 2018 at 2:06:11 PM UTC-8, olds...@tubes.com wrote:
> Will Deoxit on a circuit board cause problems?
Not according to the manufacturer. Various formulations have been around for
> Will Deoxit on a circuit board cause problems?
decades, with no alarms raised. Relax, plug it in and go.
Jeff Liebermann
Feb 6, 2018, 7:43:44 PM2/6/18
to
On Tue, 06 Feb 2018 16:05:11 -0600, olds...@tubes.com wrote:
>Will Deoxit on a circuit board cause problems? In other words, is it
>conductive if it's touching components?
Think about it for a moment. If a switch lube were conductive, and
>Will Deoxit on a circuit board cause problems? In other words, is it
>conductive if it's touching components?
you sprayed it on the switch contacts, one might expect the switch
lube to short out the switch. That would make it a very bad switch
lube. Therefore, one might suspect that NOT shorting out the switch
which Deoxit is trying to lubricate might be a formulation
requirement. In other words, it better not be conductive.
Deoxit is mosly mineral oil (saturated parrafin oil) which will
evaporate, but very slowly. You'll need some kind organic solvent to
clean off the oil residue from the PCB. If you using Cramolin Red
instead of Deoxit, there's some oleic acid in the mix as an oxide
remover, which will very slowly corrode copper and must be removed
from the PCB.
--
Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
olds...@tubes.com
Feb 7, 2018, 4:06:40 AM2/7/18
to
On Tue, 06 Feb 2018 16:43:38 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
wrote:
>On Tue, 06 Feb 2018 16:05:11 -0600, olds...@tubes.com wrote:
>
>>Will Deoxit on a circuit board cause problems? In other words, is it
>>conductive if it's touching components?
>
>Think about it for a moment. If a switch lube were conductive, and
>you sprayed it on the switch contacts, one might expect the switch
>lube to short out the switch. That would make it a very bad switch
>lube. Therefore, one might suspect that NOT shorting out the switch
>which Deoxit is trying to lubricate might be a formulation
>requirement. In other words, it better not be conductive.
>
>Deoxit is mosly mineral oil (saturated parrafin oil) which will
>evaporate, but very slowly. You'll need some kind organic solvent to
>clean off the oil residue from the PCB. If you using Cramolin Red
>instead of Deoxit, there's some oleic acid in the mix as an oxide
>remover, which will very slowly corrode copper and must be removed
>from the PCB.
I guess I did not explain that real well. Of course it's not conductive,
but what I meant is whether there could be water in it, meaning till it
drys it could be conductive via the water. I know most chemicals these
days cant contain solvents which are air pollution. In fact a mechanic
friend told me that auto paints no longer contain laquer thinner, and
some are even water based.
Knowing it's mineral oil eliminates that worry. I've never seen that
Cramolin Red, but I'll be sure to never buy it. Deoxit seems to be the
best anyhow, so I dont buy anything else. Years ago, I used Radio Shacks
contact cleaner most of the time, which usually worked ok, but that is
no longer available and Deoxit is better anyhow. It's a little on the
pricey side, but I find myself using less of it than I used with the
sprays I used in the past.
Thanks for the help.
wrote:
>On Tue, 06 Feb 2018 16:05:11 -0600, olds...@tubes.com wrote:
>
>>Will Deoxit on a circuit board cause problems? In other words, is it
>>conductive if it's touching components?
>
>Think about it for a moment. If a switch lube were conductive, and
>you sprayed it on the switch contacts, one might expect the switch
>lube to short out the switch. That would make it a very bad switch
>lube. Therefore, one might suspect that NOT shorting out the switch
>which Deoxit is trying to lubricate might be a formulation
>requirement. In other words, it better not be conductive.
>
>Deoxit is mosly mineral oil (saturated parrafin oil) which will
>evaporate, but very slowly. You'll need some kind organic solvent to
>clean off the oil residue from the PCB. If you using Cramolin Red
>instead of Deoxit, there's some oleic acid in the mix as an oxide
>remover, which will very slowly corrode copper and must be removed
>from the PCB.
but what I meant is whether there could be water in it, meaning till it
drys it could be conductive via the water. I know most chemicals these
days cant contain solvents which are air pollution. In fact a mechanic
friend told me that auto paints no longer contain laquer thinner, and
some are even water based.
Knowing it's mineral oil eliminates that worry. I've never seen that
Cramolin Red, but I'll be sure to never buy it. Deoxit seems to be the
best anyhow, so I dont buy anything else. Years ago, I used Radio Shacks
contact cleaner most of the time, which usually worked ok, but that is
no longer available and Deoxit is better anyhow. It's a little on the
pricey side, but I find myself using less of it than I used with the
sprays I used in the past.
Thanks for the help.
gregz
Feb 7, 2018, 4:19:00 AM2/7/18
to
Naphtha. It evaporates slower than some other solvents. The 5% oily
solution remains for some time. Flammable but not conductive.
Greg
gregz
Feb 7, 2018, 4:31:23 AM2/7/18
to
<olds...@tubes.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Feb 2018 16:43:38 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 06 Feb 2018 16:05:11 -0600, olds...@tubes.com wrote:
>>
>>> Will Deoxit on a circuit board cause problems? In other words, is it
>>> conductive if it's touching components?
>>
>> Think about it for a moment. If a switch lube were conductive, and
>> you sprayed it on the switch contacts, one might expect the switch
>> lube to short out the switch. That would make it a very bad switch
>> lube. Therefore, one might suspect that NOT shorting out the switch
>> which Deoxit is trying to lubricate might be a formulation
>> requirement. In other words, it better not be conductive.
>>
>> Deoxit is mosly mineral oil (saturated parrafin oil) which will
>> evaporate, but very slowly. You'll need some kind organic solvent to
>> clean off the oil residue from the PCB. If you using Cramolin Red
>> instead of Deoxit, there's some oleic acid in the mix as an oxide
>> remover, which will very slowly corrode copper and must be removed
>> from the PCB.
>
> I guess I did not explain that real well. Of course it's not conductive,
> but what I meant is whether there could be water in it, meaning till it
> drys it could be conductive via the water. I know most chemicals these
> days cant contain solvents which are air pollution. In fact a mechanic
> friend told me that auto paints no longer contain laquer thinner, and
> some are even water based.
>
Some areas or states might have a ban on lacquer. Not popular like once
> On Tue, 06 Feb 2018 16:43:38 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 06 Feb 2018 16:05:11 -0600, olds...@tubes.com wrote:
>>
>>> Will Deoxit on a circuit board cause problems? In other words, is it
>>> conductive if it's touching components?
>>
>> Think about it for a moment. If a switch lube were conductive, and
>> you sprayed it on the switch contacts, one might expect the switch
>> lube to short out the switch. That would make it a very bad switch
>> lube. Therefore, one might suspect that NOT shorting out the switch
>> which Deoxit is trying to lubricate might be a formulation
>> requirement. In other words, it better not be conductive.
>>
>> Deoxit is mosly mineral oil (saturated parrafin oil) which will
>> evaporate, but very slowly. You'll need some kind organic solvent to
>> clean off the oil residue from the PCB. If you using Cramolin Red
>> instead of Deoxit, there's some oleic acid in the mix as an oxide
>> remover, which will very slowly corrode copper and must be removed
>> from the PCB.
>
> I guess I did not explain that real well. Of course it's not conductive,
> but what I meant is whether there could be water in it, meaning till it
> drys it could be conductive via the water. I know most chemicals these
> days cant contain solvents which are air pollution. In fact a mechanic
> friend told me that auto paints no longer contain laquer thinner, and
> some are even water based.
>
was, but common in touch up spray cans. Enamel spray with hardener is
awfull to breath.
> Knowing it's mineral oil eliminates that worry. I've never seen that
> Cramolin Red, but I'll be sure to never buy it. Deoxit seems to be the
> best anyhow, so I dont buy anything else. Years ago, I used Radio Shacks
> contact cleaner most of the time, which usually worked ok, but that is
> no longer available and Deoxit is better anyhow. It's a little on the
> pricey side, but I find myself using less of it than I used with the
> sprays I used in the past.
>
> Thanks for the help.
spray.
Greg
pf...@aol.com
Feb 7, 2018, 10:27:53 AM2/7/18
to
OK - DeOxit as a contact cleaner (there are several formula) contains 95% volatile hydrocarbons and propellants if applicable, and 5% proprietary ingredients. These latter may or may not be Oleic acid, but they are reactant with various oxides of common conductive materials such as silver, copper or tin.
As long as all or part of that 5% has not reacted with one or another oxide, it will remain active. The salts produced by its reactions are, emphatically, conductive. DeOxit *MUST* be removed from whatever it goes into in order to prevent down-the-line problems. If used on a pot, the pot should be rinsed in a _lubricating_ cleaner. CRC, amongst others, makes such a material, spray or pump.
So, use DeOxit. Allow it to work while exercising the pot (or switch). Rinse & lubricate. Done.
Peter Wieck
Denver, CO
As long as all or part of that 5% has not reacted with one or another oxide, it will remain active. The salts produced by its reactions are, emphatically, conductive. DeOxit *MUST* be removed from whatever it goes into in order to prevent down-the-line problems. If used on a pot, the pot should be rinsed in a _lubricating_ cleaner. CRC, amongst others, makes such a material, spray or pump.
So, use DeOxit. Allow it to work while exercising the pot (or switch). Rinse & lubricate. Done.
Peter Wieck
Denver, CO
Jeff Liebermann
Feb 7, 2018, 12:29:49 PM2/7/18
to
On Wed, 7 Feb 2018 09:18:57 -0000 (UTC), gregz <ze...@comcast.net>
wrote:
>Main ingredient in common Deoxit is gasoline. Well, Coleman Fuel, well
>Naphtha. It evaporates slower than some other solvents. The 5% oily
>solution remains for some time. Flammable but not conductive.
>Greg
Reverse engineering Deoxit is problematic because the formula has
changed over the years (starting with Cramoline) and because there are
multiple mutations sold under the Deoxit name. There's now a Deoxit
grease. Even so, I can assure you that gasoline is not used (it
evaporates and you would smell it).
The spray type is mostly "mineral spirits" or "naphtha". The "active
ingredient" is some kind of acidic oxide remover, such as oleic acid
(because it is food safe):
<http://store.caig.com/s.nl/it.I/id.66/.f>
"Formulation: 5% DeoxIT® (active ingredient), 75% odorless
mineral spirits (carrier solvent), 20% propellant
Formulation contains petroleum naphtha (odorless mineral spirits)
solvent, and is briefly flammable (until solvent evaporates within
2-3 minutes). It's slower to evaporate, providing flushing action
to remove surfaces dirt, grease and other contaminants. Is ideal
for connectors and components removed from equipment or those
that are easily accessible. It is safe on plastics. When in doubt,
always test for compatibility, especially vintage equipment with
aging ABS plastic(s)."
Note the $150 for 7.4ml price tag for Deoxit Gold Pro GX3.
<http://store.caig.com/s.nl/it.A/id.2847/.f>
"Shields Against Noise and RFI"
Ummm... right.
wrote:
>Main ingredient in common Deoxit is gasoline. Well, Coleman Fuel, well
>Naphtha. It evaporates slower than some other solvents. The 5% oily
>solution remains for some time. Flammable but not conductive.
>Greg
changed over the years (starting with Cramoline) and because there are
multiple mutations sold under the Deoxit name. There's now a Deoxit
grease. Even so, I can assure you that gasoline is not used (it
evaporates and you would smell it).
The spray type is mostly "mineral spirits" or "naphtha". The "active
ingredient" is some kind of acidic oxide remover, such as oleic acid
(because it is food safe):
<http://store.caig.com/s.nl/it.I/id.66/.f>
"Formulation: 5% DeoxIT® (active ingredient), 75% odorless
mineral spirits (carrier solvent), 20% propellant
Formulation contains petroleum naphtha (odorless mineral spirits)
solvent, and is briefly flammable (until solvent evaporates within
2-3 minutes). It's slower to evaporate, providing flushing action
to remove surfaces dirt, grease and other contaminants. Is ideal
for connectors and components removed from equipment or those
that are easily accessible. It is safe on plastics. When in doubt,
always test for compatibility, especially vintage equipment with
aging ABS plastic(s)."
Note the $150 for 7.4ml price tag for Deoxit Gold Pro GX3.
<http://store.caig.com/s.nl/it.A/id.2847/.f>
"Shields Against Noise and RFI"
Ummm... right.
tabb...@gmail.com
Feb 8, 2018, 6:46:55 PM2/8/18
to
On Wednesday, 7 February 2018 17:29:49 UTC, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> Note the $150 for 7.4ml price tag for Deoxit Gold Pro GX3.
> <http://store.caig.com/s.nl/it.A/id.2847/.f>
> "Shields Against Noise and RFI"
> Ummm... right.
What? If you sprayed it in your ear it would shield you against noise. And when were you last hassled by Robert Fred or Ian? See it does shield you from R,F&I.
> Note the $150 for 7.4ml price tag for Deoxit Gold Pro GX3.
> <http://store.caig.com/s.nl/it.A/id.2847/.f>
> "Shields Against Noise and RFI"
> Ummm... right.
NT
Jeff Liebermann
Feb 9, 2018, 8:09:54 PM2/9/18
to
On Thu, 8 Feb 2018 15:46:52 -0800 (PST), tabb...@gmail.com wrote:
>On Wednesday, 7 February 2018 17:29:49 UTC, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>
>> Note the $150 for 7.4ml price tag for Deoxit Gold Pro GX3.
>> <http://store.caig.com/s.nl/it.A/id.2847/.f>
>> "Shields Against Noise and RFI"
>> Ummm... right.
>
>What? If you sprayed it in your ear it would shield you
>against noise.
Ummm... It uses a brush or swap applicator (for maximum waste and
>On Wednesday, 7 February 2018 17:29:49 UTC, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>
>> Note the $150 for 7.4ml price tag for Deoxit Gold Pro GX3.
>> <http://store.caig.com/s.nl/it.A/id.2847/.f>
>> "Shields Against Noise and RFI"
>> Ummm... right.
>
>What? If you sprayed it in your ear it would shield you
>against noise.
evaporation) and is not a spray. A Q-tip might be best for swabbing
in your ear. Let us know if it reduces the noise level and improves
the SNR (signal to noise ratio) in this newsgroup.
>And when were you last hassled by Robert Fred or Ian? See it does
>shield you from R,F&I.
tabb...@gmail.com
Feb 10, 2018, 8:44:37 PM2/10/18
to
On Saturday, 10 February 2018 01:09:54 UTC, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
NT
> On Thu, 8 Feb 2018 15:46:52 -0800 (PST), tabbypurr wrote:
> >On Wednesday, 7 February 2018 17:29:49 UTC, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> >
> >> Note the $150 for 7.4ml price tag for Deoxit Gold Pro GX3.
> >> <http://store.caig.com/s.nl/it.A/id.2847/.f>
> >> "Shields Against Noise and RFI"
> >> Ummm... right.
> >
> >What? If you sprayed it in your ear it would shield you
> >against noise.
>
> Ummm... It uses a brush or swap applicator (for maximum waste and
> evaporation) and is not a spray. A Q-tip might be best for swabbing
> in your ear. Let us know if it reduces the noise level and improves
> the SNR (signal to noise ratio) in this newsgroup.
Well I'm not an earologist, but I presumed more would get on the eardrum if it were sprayed in, hence the suggestion of sorts. And if some does, it's bound to reduce noise, to some degree.
> >On Wednesday, 7 February 2018 17:29:49 UTC, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> >
> >> Note the $150 for 7.4ml price tag for Deoxit Gold Pro GX3.
> >> <http://store.caig.com/s.nl/it.A/id.2847/.f>
> >> "Shields Against Noise and RFI"
> >> Ummm... right.
> >
> >What? If you sprayed it in your ear it would shield you
> >against noise.
>
> Ummm... It uses a brush or swap applicator (for maximum waste and
> evaporation) and is not a spray. A Q-tip might be best for swabbing
> in your ear. Let us know if it reduces the noise level and improves
> the SNR (signal to noise ratio) in this newsgroup.
NT
pf...@aol.com
Feb 11, 2018, 7:44:37 AM2/11/18
to
Quick fix (Pat. Pend.):
a) Obtain one small container of low-grade, but pure Olive Oil.
b) Obtain a small container of Zippo lighter fluid (made in Bradford, PA).
c) Obtain a small package of cotton swabs.
In a small dish, mix nineteen (19) drops of lighter fluid with one (1) drop of olive oil.
Saturate the end of one cotton swab in the material.
Stick it in your ear!
Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA
a) Obtain one small container of low-grade, but pure Olive Oil.
b) Obtain a small container of Zippo lighter fluid (made in Bradford, PA).
c) Obtain a small package of cotton swabs.
In a small dish, mix nineteen (19) drops of lighter fluid with one (1) drop of olive oil.
Saturate the end of one cotton swab in the material.
Stick it in your ear!
Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA
Jeff Liebermann
Feb 11, 2018, 1:02:45 PM2/11/18
to
On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 17:44:33 -0800 (PST), tabb...@gmail.com wrote:
>On Saturday, 10 February 2018 01:09:54 UTC, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> On Thu, 8 Feb 2018 15:46:52 -0800 (PST), tabbypurr wrote:
>> >On Wednesday, 7 February 2018 17:29:49 UTC, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> >
>> >> Note the $150 for 7.4ml price tag for Deoxit Gold Pro GX3.
>> >> <http://store.caig.com/s.nl/it.A/id.2847/.f>
>> >> "Shields Against Noise and RFI"
>> >> Ummm... right.
>> >
>> >What? If you sprayed it in your ear it would shield you
>> >against noise.
>>
>> Ummm... It uses a brush or swap applicator (for maximum waste and
>> evaporation) and is not a spray. A Q-tip might be best for swabbing
>> in your ear. Let us know if it reduces the noise level and improves
>> the SNR (signal to noise ratio) in this newsgroup.
>Well I'm not an earologist,
That would be an otolaryngologist:
>On Saturday, 10 February 2018 01:09:54 UTC, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> On Thu, 8 Feb 2018 15:46:52 -0800 (PST), tabbypurr wrote:
>> >On Wednesday, 7 February 2018 17:29:49 UTC, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> >
>> >> Note the $150 for 7.4ml price tag for Deoxit Gold Pro GX3.
>> >> <http://store.caig.com/s.nl/it.A/id.2847/.f>
>> >> "Shields Against Noise and RFI"
>> >> Ummm... right.
>> >
>> >What? If you sprayed it in your ear it would shield you
>> >against noise.
>>
>> Ummm... It uses a brush or swap applicator (for maximum waste and
>> evaporation) and is not a spray. A Q-tip might be best for swabbing
>> in your ear. Let us know if it reduces the noise level and improves
>> the SNR (signal to noise ratio) in this newsgroup.
>Well I'm not an earologist,
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otorhinolaryngology>
Please add the word to your grammar, vocabulary, and spelling chequer.
>but I presumed more would get on the eardrum if it were sprayed in,
>hence the suggestion of sorts. And if some does, it's bound to
>reduce noise, to some degree.
the sensitivity to audible noise would likely be worse. Water, oil,
and presumably Deoxit are incompressible and thus transmitting sounds
and noise better than through compressible air. That's why we can
hear when submerged in water. Besides, I don't think the ultra
expensive Deoxit Pro GX3 is currently available in spray form. Since
every drop is valueable, a proper dispenser would be a blunt needle
tip bottle, not a brush or swab, and certainly not a wasteful spray.
tabb...@gmail.com
Feb 12, 2018, 12:31:17 PM2/12/18
to
On Sunday, 11 February 2018 18:02:45 UTC, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
Otology, otorhinolaryngology, otolaryngology, ENT, etc. Please explain how I can add a word that's in my vocabulary to my vocabulary, I can't find that command. I'm running Life 1.0.
Anyone that's been underwater can tell you they hear less. It's obvious enough, since water has way more density than air.
NT
Anyone that's been underwater can tell you they hear less. It's obvious enough, since water has way more density than air.
NT
Jeff Liebermann
Feb 12, 2018, 12:50:04 PM2/12/18
to
On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 09:31:12 -0800 (PST), tabb...@gmail.com wrote:
>Otology, otorhinolaryngology, otolaryngology, ENT, etc. Please
>explain how I can add a word that's in my vocabulary to my
>vocabulary, I can't find that command. I'm running Life 1.0.
I don't think it's my place to teach you how to learn, but the general
>Otology, otorhinolaryngology, otolaryngology, ENT, etc. Please
>explain how I can add a word that's in my vocabulary to my
>vocabulary, I can't find that command. I'm running Life 1.0.
procedure is quite simple. Open book, insert face, learn a few new
words, use them as much a possible, and hopefully some of them might
stick. Writing or typing these new additions to your vocabulary also
enhances retention and improves spelling.
>Anyone that's been underwater can tell you they hear less.
>It's obvious enough, since water has way more density than air.
>NT
frequency sounds, while still passing most of the low frequency
sounds. Moving the eardrum against a mass of water on one side
requires more energy. Moving the eardrum slower, at lower
frequencies, requires less energy, so some of that is preserved.
Either way, spraying Deoxit in your ear isn't going to do anything
useful, except maybe loosen some ear wax.
olds...@tubes.com
Feb 12, 2018, 2:14:15 PM2/12/18
to
On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 09:49:58 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
wrote:
>I don't think it's my place to teach you how to learn, but the general
>procedure is quite simple. Open book, insert face,
You forgot to mention "OPEN YOUR EYES"....... :)
wrote:
>I don't think it's my place to teach you how to learn, but the general
>procedure is quite simple. Open book, insert face,
pf...@aol.com
Feb 12, 2018, 3:05:37 PM2/12/18
to
There are approximately 228,000 words in the English Language excluding compounds, jargon, plurals, etc..
Add in all of the above, and that number jumps to just under 1,000,000.
Of the first number, the average American native English speaker has a working vocabulary of about 5,000 words speaking, and about twice that written.
https://www.oxfordonlineenglish.com/english-level-test/vocabulary
Test yourself (the link is one of many) and let us know.
Writing for myself, I grew up with over 5,000 books and no television in the house. I typically max out on these test with a working vocabulary of over 80,000 words undifferentiated between spoken and written. This is not even a little bit a matter of intelligence, simply a matter of early, continued and repeated exposure. I still read, on average, three books per week, in a mix of about 40% mystery (Martha Grimes, Louise Penny), 20% Thriller (Lee Child, Steven King, Dean Koontz) and the rest historical (David McCullough and such).
Words are fascinating. At the same time, both tools and weapons.
Add in all of the above, and that number jumps to just under 1,000,000.
Of the first number, the average American native English speaker has a working vocabulary of about 5,000 words speaking, and about twice that written.
https://www.oxfordonlineenglish.com/english-level-test/vocabulary
Test yourself (the link is one of many) and let us know.
Writing for myself, I grew up with over 5,000 books and no television in the house. I typically max out on these test with a working vocabulary of over 80,000 words undifferentiated between spoken and written. This is not even a little bit a matter of intelligence, simply a matter of early, continued and repeated exposure. I still read, on average, three books per week, in a mix of about 40% mystery (Martha Grimes, Louise Penny), 20% Thriller (Lee Child, Steven King, Dean Koontz) and the rest historical (David McCullough and such).
Words are fascinating. At the same time, both tools and weapons.
olds...@tubes.com
Feb 12, 2018, 3:41:41 PM2/12/18
to
On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 12:05:33 -0800 (PST), "pf...@aol.com" <pf...@aol.com>
wrote:
>Of the first number, the average American native English speaker has a working
>vocabulary of about 5,000 words speaking, and about twice that written.
You wont find that on ebay much of the time. Particularly if the item is
in California. Apparenely there are a lot of foreign speaking persons
selling on ebay, in CA. who only know ten words in English.
Just recently I asked a CA ebay seller about a part for my car. I gave a
detailed description of what I needed, and asked if they would tell me
the correct part, if that was the wrong one. (There were 4
possibilities).
The reply I got (3 days later) was:
* So sorry it is not fit. *
I bet that used up half of his English vocabulary.....
And did not help me get the correct part.
I ordered from a different seller, which cost $2 more, I phoned and
that seller was able and willing to help me get the perfect part and
could speak english well, and was friendly to boot.
Good service means a lot to me, and I'll pay a little more to get it.
I'd hate to think what would happen if I got the wrong, or a defective
part from that guy who cant speak english... Actually I have had that
happen with a few other items, and it became a real hassle...
wrote:
>Of the first number, the average American native English speaker has a working
>vocabulary of about 5,000 words speaking, and about twice that written.
in California. Apparenely there are a lot of foreign speaking persons
selling on ebay, in CA. who only know ten words in English.
Just recently I asked a CA ebay seller about a part for my car. I gave a
detailed description of what I needed, and asked if they would tell me
the correct part, if that was the wrong one. (There were 4
possibilities).
The reply I got (3 days later) was:
* So sorry it is not fit. *
I bet that used up half of his English vocabulary.....
And did not help me get the correct part.
I ordered from a different seller, which cost $2 more, I phoned and
that seller was able and willing to help me get the perfect part and
could speak english well, and was friendly to boot.
Good service means a lot to me, and I'll pay a little more to get it.
I'd hate to think what would happen if I got the wrong, or a defective
part from that guy who cant speak english... Actually I have had that
happen with a few other items, and it became a real hassle...
pf...@aol.com
Feb 12, 2018, 5:19:13 PM2/12/18
to
On Monday, February 12, 2018 at 3:41:41 PM UTC-5, olds...@tubes.com wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 12:05:33 -0800 (PST), "pf...@aol.com" <pf...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Of the first number, the average American native English speaker has a working
> >vocabulary of about 5,000 words speaking, and about twice that written.
>
The saddest part, and I did not go too deeply into it, is that non-American native English speakers tend to have a spoken vocabulary of approximately 12,000 words and a written vocabulary of approximately 42,000 words.
> On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 12:05:33 -0800 (PST), "pf...@aol.com" <pf...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Of the first number, the average American native English speaker has a working
> >vocabulary of about 5,000 words speaking, and about twice that written.
>
ESL speakers tend to learn 2.5 words per day, for approximately five years after starting to learn English. And they 'start' with roughly 1,000 words. Meaning that they are as good or better (discounting an accent) than the average American in that five years.
Education in this country is abysmal at the elementary and high-school level. And we are paying the price.
Mike Coon
Feb 12, 2018, 6:52:59 PM2/12/18
to
In article <5c022dab-6c39-4b71...@googlegroups.com>,
pf...@aol.com says...
I tried that "vocab" test site you cited. Deeply boring. Just a test of
idiomatic simple English (at least for the first 50% - as far as I could
be bothered to try!). Certainly not polysyllabic...
Mike.
pf...@aol.com says...
idiomatic simple English (at least for the first 50% - as far as I could
be bothered to try!). Certainly not polysyllabic...
Mike.
tabb...@gmail.com
Feb 12, 2018, 8:23:06 PM2/12/18
to
On Monday, 12 February 2018 17:50:04 UTC, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> >Anyone that's been underwater can tell you they hear less.
> >It's obvious enough, since water has way more density than air.
> >NT
>
> I believe that I mentioned that underwater hearing attenuates the high
> frequency sounds, while still passing most of the low frequency
> sounds. Moving the eardrum against a mass of water on one side
> requires more energy. Moving the eardrum slower, at lower
> frequencies, requires less energy, so some of that is preserved.
> Either way, spraying Deoxit in your ear isn't going to do anything
> useful, except maybe loosen some ear wax.
No-one ever said it would be useful, just that it would reduce noise. And it does a bit.
NT
> On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 09:31:12 -0800 (PST), tabbypurr wrote:
>
> >Otology, otorhinolaryngology, otolaryngology, ENT, etc. Please
> >explain how I can add a word that's in my vocabulary to my
> >vocabulary, I can't find that command. I'm running Life 1.0.
>
> I don't think it's my place to teach you how to learn, but the general
> procedure is quite simple. Open book, insert face, learn a few new
> words, use them as much a possible, and hopefully some of them might
> stick. Writing or typing these new additions to your vocabulary also
> enhances retention and improves spelling.
you've failed to answer the question. You told me to I learn something I already know. How?
>
> >Otology, otorhinolaryngology, otolaryngology, ENT, etc. Please
> >explain how I can add a word that's in my vocabulary to my
> >vocabulary, I can't find that command. I'm running Life 1.0.
>
> I don't think it's my place to teach you how to learn, but the general
> procedure is quite simple. Open book, insert face, learn a few new
> words, use them as much a possible, and hopefully some of them might
> stick. Writing or typing these new additions to your vocabulary also
> enhances retention and improves spelling.
> >Anyone that's been underwater can tell you they hear less.
> >It's obvious enough, since water has way more density than air.
> >NT
>
> I believe that I mentioned that underwater hearing attenuates the high
> frequency sounds, while still passing most of the low frequency
> sounds. Moving the eardrum against a mass of water on one side
> requires more energy. Moving the eardrum slower, at lower
> frequencies, requires less energy, so some of that is preserved.
> Either way, spraying Deoxit in your ear isn't going to do anything
> useful, except maybe loosen some ear wax.
NT
Jeff Liebermann
Feb 13, 2018, 11:53:26 AM2/13/18
to
On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 17:23:02 -0800 (PST), tabb...@gmail.com wrote:
>you've failed to answer the question. You told me to I learn
>something I already know. How?
Think of it as a refresh cycle, as in dynamic RAM. If you don't use a
>you've failed to answer the question. You told me to I learn
>something I already know. How?
word, we tend to forget it. It should help you recall the correct
term, ummm... whatever it was, for an eye, ear, nose, and throat
doctor.
>No-one ever said it would be useful, just that it would
>reduce noise. And it does a bit.
By implication and due to general lack of specifics and details,
methinks they are referring to RF noise, not audible acoustic noise.
If Deoxit really did reduce RF noise and RF interference, then it
would need to apply some kind of barrier. There are two general
types, absorptive and reflective. Unfortunately the data sheet also
mentions:
"Improves Conductivity"
which could be either absorptive or reflective, because human skin is
mildly conductive. Without further detail from Deoxit, I can't offer
a mechanism for how it might function to reduce RF noise and RF
interference.
tabb...@gmail.com
Feb 13, 2018, 12:19:01 PM2/13/18
to
On Tuesday, 13 February 2018 16:53:26 UTC, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> >No-one ever said it would be useful, just that it would
> >reduce noise. And it does a bit.
>
> I believer you may have misread the data sheet:
> <http://store.caig.com/s.nl/it.A/id.2847/.f>
> "Shields Against Noise and RFI"
no, I didn't misread it
> By implication and due to general lack of specifics and details,
> methinks they are referring to RF noise, not audible acoustic noise.
Of course that is not implied, it is inferred by you.
I would think it evident that the only possible credible claim re noise reduction is that it may reduce noise caused by oxidised contacts. That it might reduce other forms of noise in real world electronic circuits seems wholly unrealistic.
I would therefore think it somewhat obvious that I was being facetious when discussing it's sonic noise reduction properties, which technically it does have, even if they bear no connection to its real world intended use. My apology for thinking all that obvious.
NT
> On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 17:23:02 -0800 (PST), tabbypurr wrote:
>
> >you've failed to answer the question. You told me to I learn
> >something I already know. How?
>
> Think of it as a refresh cycle, as in dynamic RAM. If you don't use a
> word, we tend to forget it. It should help you recall the correct
> term, ummm... whatever it was, for an eye, ear, nose, and throat
> doctor.
you seem determined to miss the point and engage in a silly pissing contest. No matter.
>
> >you've failed to answer the question. You told me to I learn
> >something I already know. How?
>
> Think of it as a refresh cycle, as in dynamic RAM. If you don't use a
> word, we tend to forget it. It should help you recall the correct
> term, ummm... whatever it was, for an eye, ear, nose, and throat
> doctor.
> >No-one ever said it would be useful, just that it would
> >reduce noise. And it does a bit.
>
> I believer you may have misread the data sheet:
> <http://store.caig.com/s.nl/it.A/id.2847/.f>
> "Shields Against Noise and RFI"
> By implication and due to general lack of specifics and details,
> methinks they are referring to RF noise, not audible acoustic noise.
I would think it evident that the only possible credible claim re noise reduction is that it may reduce noise caused by oxidised contacts. That it might reduce other forms of noise in real world electronic circuits seems wholly unrealistic.
I would therefore think it somewhat obvious that I was being facetious when discussing it's sonic noise reduction properties, which technically it does have, even if they bear no connection to its real world intended use. My apology for thinking all that obvious.
NT
Jeff Liebermann
Feb 13, 2018, 1:08:10 PM2/13/18
to
On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 09:18:54 -0800 (PST), tabb...@gmail.com wrote:
>On Tuesday, 13 February 2018 16:53:26 UTC, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 17:23:02 -0800 (PST), tabbypurr wrote:
>>
>> >you've failed to answer the question. You told me to I learn
>> >something I already know. How?
>>
>> Think of it as a refresh cycle, as in dynamic RAM. If you don't use a
>> word, we tend to forget it. It should help you recall the correct
>> term, ummm... whatever it was, for an eye, ear, nose, and throat
>> doctor.
>you seem determined to miss the point and engage in a silly
>pissing contest. No matter.
Guilty as charged. If needed, I can supply a signed confession for a
>On Tuesday, 13 February 2018 16:53:26 UTC, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 17:23:02 -0800 (PST), tabbypurr wrote:
>>
>> >you've failed to answer the question. You told me to I learn
>> >something I already know. How?
>>
>> Think of it as a refresh cycle, as in dynamic RAM. If you don't use a
>> word, we tend to forget it. It should help you recall the correct
>> term, ummm... whatever it was, for an eye, ear, nose, and throat
>> doctor.
>you seem determined to miss the point and engage in a silly
>pissing contest. No matter.
nominal charge. However, simply because I'm not providing the reply
which you are expecting does not make this a pissing contest.
>> >No-one ever said it would be useful, just that it would
>> >reduce noise. And it does a bit.
>>
>> I believer you may have misread the data sheet:
>> <http://store.caig.com/s.nl/it.A/id.2847/.f>
>> "Shields Against Noise and RFI"
>no, I didn't misread it
>> By implication and due to general lack of specifics and details,
>> methinks they are referring to RF noise, not audible acoustic noise.
>Of course that is not implied, it is inferred by you.
Using "noise" and "RFI" in the same sentence suggests that they might
be connected in some way. Since audio was not specifically mentioned
while interference was mentioned, perhaps they both involve RF? Either
way, you cannot assume that the particular form of noise mentioned in
the data sheet is audible or that Dexoit can be expected to function
under water or in the ear.
>I would think it evident that the only possible credible claim re
>noise reduction is that it may reduce noise caused by oxidised
>contacts. That it might reduce other forms of noise in real world
>electronic circuits seems wholly unrealistic.
test for this are numbers, the lack of which suggest that such
performance claims are far from evident or obvious. In this case, the
noise reduction should be specified and measured in dB decrease in
accordance to a repeatable testing procedure. What Deoxit might do in
a real world or under non-specific conditions is of no concern. It
might be possible to contrive such a test and associated measurement
at audio levels, but the mention of RFI in the same sentence suggests
that it is an RF noise level, which would be more difficult to
demonstrate and measure. Unfortunately, the picture in the data sheet
is that of the rear of an audio amplifier, which suggests an audio
test. Therefore, unless additional clarification arrives from Caig
Labs, such a test cannot be performed. I'll leave it an open question
while awaiting clarification and possibly test results.
>I would therefore think it somewhat obvious that I was being
>facetious when discussing it's sonic noise reduction properties,
>which technically it does have, even if they bear no connection
>to its real world intended use. My apology for thinking all
>that obvious.
unwillingness to accept your observations, deductions, and conclusions
at face value. You have failed to see the value in refreshing your
vocabulary. You have failed to distinguish between acoustic and RF
noise. You have failed to recognize that miraculous performance
claims by overpriced solvents must be tested, measured, and proven.
You have failed to recognize that all things that are obvious, beyond
any need of verification, are invariably wrong. You have also failed
to agree with anything I have offered, which is prima facie evidence
that you are most likely in error. You even failed by thinking that
all things are obvious. With such a dismal success rate, there is
little hope of recovery. I'll accept your apology for trying to think
the obvious and leave it at that.
tabb...@gmail.com
Feb 13, 2018, 2:51:25 PM2/13/18
to
On Tuesday, 13 February 2018 18:08:10 UTC, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
I just see no value in them
> You have failed to see the value in refreshing your
> vocabulary.
wrong, yet again
> You have failed to distinguish between acoustic and RF
> noise.
wrong & silly
> You have failed to recognize that miraculous performance
> claims by overpriced solvents must be tested, measured, and proven.
wrong & silly
> You have failed to recognize that all things that are obvious, beyond
> any need of verification, are invariably wrong.
wrong & silly
> You have also failed
> to agree with anything I have offered, which is prima facie evidence
> that you are most likely in error.
wrong & silly
> You even failed by thinking that
> all things are obvious.
wrong & silly
> With such a dismal success rate, there is
> little hope of recovery. I'll accept your apology for trying to think
> the obvious and leave it at that.
just silly.
I won't spend any more time on your weirdness today.
NT
> You have failed to see the value in refreshing your
> vocabulary.
> You have failed to distinguish between acoustic and RF
> noise.
> You have failed to recognize that miraculous performance
> claims by overpriced solvents must be tested, measured, and proven.
> You have failed to recognize that all things that are obvious, beyond
> any need of verification, are invariably wrong.
> You have also failed
> to agree with anything I have offered, which is prima facie evidence
> that you are most likely in error.
> You even failed by thinking that
> all things are obvious.
> With such a dismal success rate, there is
> little hope of recovery. I'll accept your apology for trying to think
> the obvious and leave it at that.
I won't spend any more time on your weirdness today.
NT
0 new messages