Maybe I need another 'scope?

[et...@whidbey.com]

Hey all youse 'scope gurus,
I'm gonna be getting a new and a used tube amplifier. The new one
is on the way and the used one is in my neighbor's garage. He still
needs to dig it out so I don't know anything about it except that has
tubes in it.
If the new one doesn't come with a schematic then right off the bat
I want to draw one so I can learn more about vacuum tube audio amp
workings. If I have to draw a schematic then I will put in the actual
values of the passives as well as the marked values. And I want to
measure the voltages in the circuit as well and put them into the
schematic. If the old one needs a schematic as well then if I can't
find one online I'll need to give it the same treatment as the new
one. If I do have schematics then all I will need to do is the
measurements and write them down. So....
I have a TEK 465B oscilloscope and it has served me well until now
diagnosing my CNC equipment. All the voltages I have needed to measure
have been below 50 volts. But looking at the 'scope it seems like at
the 10x setting on the probes the highest voltage I can measure is 200
volts. That's 4 divisions at 50 volts per division. And that's peak to
peak, not RMS. I do have one 20x TEK probe, a P5120, that I used for
measuring the mains power, but the voltages inside tube equipment go
much higher.
I have been watching YouTube videos about vacuum tube equipmet and
have learned a lot so far. "Uncle Doug" has several videos that have
taught me a lot. Maybe it's because he used to be a teacher I am
learning so much.
Anyway, do I need a different 'scope to to measure accurately what
is going on inside vacuum tube equipment? Should I just look for
different probes with even more attenuation? I certainly don't need
the 100 MHz bandwidth that the 465B has for working with audio
equipment.
If you all think another 'scope should be in my future I would love
some advice. Since this is a hobby I don't wanna spend a lot of money
on yet another toy, er tool. So a used 'scope is fine with me. I love
my used TEK 465B.
Now before everybody starts giving me advice about high voltages
and all that I need everybody to know that I am expert and know all
there is to know about working with high voltages. Don't waste my time
telling me to put down my drink before I start working around high
voltages. I always use plastic cups for my drinks when working with
high voltages. Oh, and I don't put any salt on the rims of my Bloody
Marys either. And no cans of beer either, only glass bottles. Safety
first. As an expert I know alcoholic drinks are good. They keep my
hands from shaking too much in the morning. And I don't like smoking
pot. I figure I'm just as expert as some other self professed experts
here who don't need any extraneous advice.
I just watched a video about isolation transformers, how to build
one in a proper enclosure and how to use it properly. So even though I
have the isolated variac I think I'll make a 1:1 isolation xmfr too
with a little more ampacity. And if anybody here thinks I could use
some more advice about working around high voltages I welcome it and
will certainly take heed.
Thanks,
Eric

[tabb...@gmail.com]

200v limit sounds most unlikely.
Enjoy frying yourself. It sounds like you will at some point.


NT

[Rheilly Phoull]

An expert who has no knowledge of voltage dividers :-)

[John Robertson]

Most tube amps are serviced in our shop with a digital voltmeter...not a
scope. Really all that you need to know are correct are the plate and
cathode voltages, and if they are off then you check the screen and
grids for proper bias - after testing the tubes for proper operation.

Most common failures are electrolytic caps, then inter-stage isolation
caps followed closely by plate resistors (they overheat with bias goes
wrong) and then cathode resistors, bias circuit, grid resistors, and
then - perhaps - a damaged output transformer.

Virtually all of that can be tested quickly with a voltmeter once you
know the average plate voltages. If the plate voltages are good then the
amp is fed a known AC signal of a set level and you then follow the AC
signal through the amp using your AC setting on the voltmeter. I check
first the input level, if good I then check the high side of the volume
control and if is on spec I then go to the output of the phase splitter
tube(s). Divide the amp in half, then halve the remaining sections to
find the problem.

If you are doing high end amp work where distortion is a factor then you
will break out a slow dual trace scope to find the issues, but for
regular tube amps like guitars and jukeboxes we usually don't bother.
Not that we don't have scopes (have almost ten in various sizes and
speeds), but they rarely help - at least for tubes!

John :-#)#

--
(Please post followups or tech inquiries to the USENET newsgroup)
John's Jukes Ltd.
MOVED to #7 - 3979 Marine Way, Burnaby, BC, Canada V5J 5E3
(604)872-5757 (Pinballs, Jukes, Video Games)
www.flippers.com
"Old pinballers never die, they just flip out."

[Ralph Mowery]

In article <d_WdnYzCwa0jzm7G...@giganews.com>,
sp...@flippers.com says...

>
>
> Most tube amps are serviced in our shop with a digital voltmeter...not a
> scope. Really all that you need to know are correct are the plate and
> cathode voltages, and if they are off then you check the screen and
> grids for proper bias - after testing the tubes for proper operation.
>
>

I agree. Forget about the scope if you want to just measure voltages.
I have the same scope and would never try to make accurate voltage
measurments with it.

You can always get a 100 to 1 probe. However, you can get one of the
'free' Harbor Freight meters and do better for what you want.

For just DC measurments you can just make your own 100:1 voltage
devider.

[Phil Allison]

John Robertson wrote:

>
>
> Most tube amps are serviced in our shop with a digital voltmeter...not a
> scope.
>

** Wow, that is contrary to how most audio amplifier techs do it.

With a scope probe, you can check DC levels and AC waveforms at the
same time - so the first step is to connect an audio generator and
dummy load and see if there is any clean output.

> Really all that you need to know are correct are the plate and
> cathode voltages, and if they are off then you check the screen and
> grids for proper bias - after testing the tubes for proper operation.
>

** OK, maybe having a good tube tester changes how you do things.

> Most common failures are electrolytic caps,

** I see amplifiers from the 1960s up to a year or so old and faulty
electros are not the most common parts to be replaced - faulty tubes are.
Electros always get replaced if my ESR meter says they are bad or there are visible problems like leaking electrolyte.



> then inter-stage isolation caps followed closely by plate resistors ...


** Only rarely need replacing, IME.

>
> If you are doing high end amp work where distortion is a factor then you
> will break out a slow dual trace scope to find the issues, but for
> regular tube amps like guitars and jukeboxes we usually don't bother.
>

** I find I use the scope and DMM in combination until the amp is all working properly. This will usually take longer on an unfamiliar example where no circuit is available.


.... Phil

[Phil Hobbs]

Everybody should have another scope now and again. I have 11 at the
moment, which is none too many. ;)

(On average I pay about 3 cents on the dollar, which makes new scopes an
easier sell.) ;)

Cheers

Phil Hobbs


--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

http://electrooptical.net
http://hobbs-eo.com

[tabb...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, 20 November 2018 06:18:38 UTC, Phil Hobbs wrote:
> On 11/19/18 7:01 PM, et...@whidbey.com wrote:
> > Hey all youse 'scope gurus,

> > Anyway, do I need a different 'scope to to measure accurately what
> > is going on inside vacuum tube equipment?

no

> > If you all think another 'scope should be in my future I would love
> > some advice. Since this is a hobby I don't wanna spend a lot of money
> > on yet another toy, er tool. So a used 'scope is fine with me. I love
> > my used TEK 465B.
>
> Everybody should have another scope now and again. I have 11 at the
> moment, which is none too many. ;)
>
> (On average I pay about 3 cents on the dollar, which makes new scopes an
> easier sell.) ;)
>
> Cheers
>
> Phil Hobbs

If you're going to get one you don't need, consider making it a pocket scope. Quite handy, even with modest specs.


NT

[peterw...@gmail.com]

Find a mirror. Put it at eye level and stare into it for one (1) full minute. Then repeat ten (10) times:

I don't need a scope to service tube amps.

Repeat as necessary.

Your isovariac will be adequate for the work. That, reasonable caution, common sense, understanding of what tubes are and do (and do not), and patience. None of which are common characteristics.

On tube testers:

YES, they are handy if you have a good one that tests for shorts and gas. And if you are going "full audiophile", one that allows you to match is also useful. But the brute fact of the matter is that there are few testers out there that actually give information that is both good and useful. That a tube has no shorts and is not gassy is good to know, but not particularly indicative of its function-in-use. I keep two - one a fairly simple Simpson emissions tester, good for about 90% of my needs, and a Hickok 539B, which is allows proper matching with additional equipment (2 x VOM). Sadly, tube testers that have been restored, calibrated and are reliable are getting scarce and expensive. The amount of *stuff* that crosses my bench in a given year justifies the need.

I also keep a very good scope - that I have used twice in five years to find that niggling problem, and that was on solid-state devices. If I ever get another scope, it will be a "pocket" device as they take up a LOT of real-estate otherwise.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Tim Schwartz]

Eric,

I'd suggest using a voltmeter (analog or digital, whatever you
prefer)for the DC voltage measurements. I like my old Heathkit VTVM for
troubleshooting, as you are unlikely to cause any serious damage to the
meter, as could happen with a digital.

The scope you have is all you need, as what you need it for is the AC
part of the waveform. Set the scope to AC coupling at the input and
you'll be looking at the ripple on the supply. If the ripple exceeds
400 volts (8 divisions at 5 volts each is 40Vp-p and with a 10x probe
that gets you to 400Vp-p) then something is seriously wrong with your
power supply or measurement technique, or you don't have a good ground
between the amp and the scope.

Regards,
Tim

[Tim Schwartz]

Eric,

I'd suggest using a voltmeter (analog or digital, whatever you
prefer)for the DC voltage measurements. I like my old Heathkit VTVM for
troubleshooting, as you are unlikely to cause any serious damage to the
meter, as could happen with a digital.

The scope you have is all you need, as what you need it for is the
AC part of the waveform. Set the scope to AC coupling at the input and
you'll be looking at the ripple on the supply. If the ripple exceeds
400 volts (8 divisions at 5 volts each is 40Vp-p and with a 10x probe
that gets you to 400Vp-p) then something is seriously wrong with your
power supply or measurement technique, or you don't have a good ground
between the amp and the scope.

Regards,
Tim


On 11/19/2018 7:01 PM, et...@whidbey.com wrote:

[tabb...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, 20 November 2018 12:24:49 UTC, pf...@aol.com wrote:

> On tube testers:
>
> YES, they are handy if you have a good one that tests for shorts and gas. And if you are going "full audiophile", one that allows you to match is also useful. But the brute fact of the matter is that there are few testers out there that actually give information that is both good and useful. That a tube has no shorts and is not gassy is good to know, but not particularly indicative of its function-in-use. I keep two - one a fairly simple Simpson emissions tester, good for about 90% of my needs, and a Hickok 539B, which is allows proper matching with additional equipment (2 x VOM). Sadly, tube testers that have been restored, calibrated and are reliable are getting scarce and expensive. The amount of *stuff* that crosses my bench in a given year justifies the need.
>
> I also keep a very good scope - that I have used twice in five years to find that niggling problem, and that was on solid-state devices. If I ever get another scope, it will be a "pocket" device as they take up a LOT of real-estate otherwise.
>
> Peter Wieck
> Melrose Park, PA

Maybe it's time to make some new tube testers.

While we're here, an iso won't help if you connect an earthed scope to the thing. It will bite you if you touch, and that's how HT is.


NT

[Ralph Mowery]

In article <45a5d682-139d-4aaa...@googlegroups.com>,
tabb...@gmail.com says...

>
> Maybe it's time to make some new tube testers.
>
> While we're here, an iso won't help if you connect an earthed scope to the thing. It will bite you if you touch, and that's how HT is.
>
>
>

It is usually easier to just pop in a good tube instead of testing
unless looking for a matched set.

I have bought a $ 300 Hantek scope. It is suppose to be good to 200 MHz
and rated for 600 volts peak. Good thing about it, you can set the
screen up for waveform and digital volt meter. YOu see the waveform and
good resolution of voltage at the same time.

Sometimes it may be better or easier to just isolate the test equipment
from the ground and not the unit under test. I don't know how much the
solid scope draws without going to check, but it could probalby be
powered by 2 transformers of 24 volts at 2 amps or so placed back to
back.

[John-Del]

On Tuesday, November 20, 2018 at 9:28:22 AM UTC-5, tabb...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, 20 November 2018 12:24:49 UTC, pf...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > On tube testers:
> >
> > YES, they are handy if you have a good one that tests for shorts and gas. And if you are going "full audiophile", one that allows you to match is also useful. But the brute fact of the matter is that there are few testers out there that actually give information that is both good and useful. That a tube has no shorts and is not gassy is good to know, but not particularly indicative of its function-in-use. I keep two - one a fairly simple Simpson emissions tester, good for about 90% of my needs, and a Hickok 539B, which is allows proper matching with additional equipment (2 x VOM). Sadly, tube testers that have been restored, calibrated and are reliable are getting scarce and expensive. The amount of *stuff* that crosses my bench in a given year justifies the need.
> >
> > I also keep a very good scope - that I have used twice in five years to find that niggling problem, and that was on solid-state devices. If I ever get another scope, it will be a "pocket" device as they take up a LOT of real-estate otherwise.
> >
> > Peter Wieck
> > Melrose Park, PA
>
> Maybe it's time to make some new tube testers.
>

There's plenty of them out there, and they're very simple circuits. I probably have half a dozen or more, the only one that's kind of a dead end is a very nice one that checks the four pin tubes that has a dead meter. Otherwise, the standard recap and check for off value resistors and maybe replacing a selenium rectifier. But very simple to restore.

These testers are very handy and I do use them, but the best way to check any tube is to observe it's behavior and measure it's performance in the circuit itself.

[peterw...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, November 20, 2018 at 9:28:22 AM UTC-5, tabb...@gmail.com wrote:

>

> Maybe it's time to make some new tube testers.
>
> While we're here, an iso won't help if you connect an earthed scope to the thing. It will bite you if you touch, and that's how HT is.
>
>
> NT

http://amplitrex.com/

This is one of several currently available. They are not cheap. If one is into tubes at a level to justify a new tester at this level, I would posit that the need is beyond the hobby level.

I tripped over my 539B when an old friend closed his business. The Simpson I found at a garage sale in Tamaqua, PA.

"Popping in" a new tube is OK for those of us with a couple of thousand tubes in a closet. Not so much for those working on operating inventory only. I do, also, like to screen tubes prior to installation.

[et...@whidbey.com]

On Mon, 19 Nov 2018 16:22:22 -0800, John Robertson <sp...@flippers.com>
wrote:

Thanks for the reply John. I think my tongue in cheek "expert" comment
fell flat but you saw through my poor attempt at humor. Since I will
be interested in looking at the AC signal through to the speaker to
see how it changes, when clipping starts, a scope will be necessary.
From what you say it looks like using a VOM for the DC and a scope for
AC would be a good way to see how the amp is working.
Thanks,
Eric

[et...@whidbey.com]

I know what a voltage divider is and have used them for some DC stuff,
but I don't know enough about AC signals to know if one would affect
the way the signal looks on a scope.
TYhjanks,
Eric

[et...@whidbey.com]

Thanks Ralph.
Eric

[et...@whidbey.com]

See that's exactly the kind of advice that I can't be told often
enough. Even though I did already know about this. My isolated variac
does not have an isolted ground so I bought one of those plug/socket
adapters that doesn't pass the ground through but instead provides a
tab to connect to ground.
Thanks,
Eric

[jurb...@gmail.com]

>"Sometimes it may be better or easier to just isolate the test equipment from the ground and not the unit under test. "

"Floating the scope" is not good practice and may be illegal in a commercial setting. I do it but I am the type who works on live wiring and all that, there is specific and unmitigable set of rules for that which I will not attempt to list here. You have to REALLY know HOW to respect electricity, ESPECIALLY with tube equipment.

Pretty sure all scope manufacturers advise against it, some might try to void the warranty, maybe. Thee are other dangers, such as any ground fault in the test equipment you float can damage the DUT.

It most certainly can create insidious shock hazards as well, not just the ground and metal case of the scope, but ANY and ALL other test equipment connected to the same circuit(s).

I'll do it but I do not recommend it. Save that for when you have no choice.

[et...@whidbey.com]

I think I need to take a look at one of those.
Thanks,
Eric

[et...@whidbey.com]

I have been looking at some on eBay. Do you have any suggestions?
Thanks,
Eric

[et...@whidbey.com]

On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 08:08:50 -0500, Tim Schwartz <t...@bristolnj.com>
wrote:

>Eric,
>
> I'd suggest using a voltmeter (analog or digital, whatever you
>prefer)for the DC voltage measurements. I like my old Heathkit VTVM for
>troubleshooting, as you are unlikely to cause any serious damage to the
>meter, as could happen with a digital.
>
> The scope you have is all you need, as what you need it for is the AC
>part of the waveform. Set the scope to AC coupling at the input and
>you'll be looking at the ripple on the supply. If the ripple exceeds
>400 volts (8 divisions at 5 volts each is 40Vp-p and with a 10x probe
>that gets you to 400Vp-p) then something is seriously wrong with your
>power supply or measurement technique, or you don't have a good ground
>between the amp and the scope.
>
>Regards,
>Tim
>
>
>

<SNIP>
Thanks Tim. That was just the sort of advice I was looking for. I
don't have a lot of experience with oscilloscopes and every time I use
mine I need to make sure I'm very careful to get everything set
correctly.
Eric

[Tim R]

I'm sure you intended humor but I am appalled you buy beer in bottles.

Light is the enemy of beer, and the better beers are the more fragile.

If you like that nasty skunky taste, okay; but we real beer drinkers buy in cans.

https://munchies.vice.com/en_us/article/xy7vn4/this-is-why-your-beer-tastes-skunky

[Ralph Mowery]

In article <soe8vdt7b4ud67b6q...@4ax.com>,
et...@whidbey.com says...

>
> >I have bought a $ 300 Hantek scope. It is suppose to be good to 200 MHz
> >and rated for 600 volts peak. Good thing about it, you can set the
> >screen up for waveform and digital volt meter. YOu see the waveform and
> >good resolution of voltage at the same time.
> >
> >Sometimes it may be better or easier to just isolate the test equipment
> >from the ground and not the unit under test. I don't know how much the
> >solid scope draws without going to check, but it could probalby be
> >powered by 2 transformers of 24 volts at 2 amps or so placed back to
> >back.
> >
> I think I need to take a look at one of those.
> Thanks,
> Eric
>
>

Look into it at this company. They often put it on sale and with free
shipping. I bought one there and a friend did also. They seem to be
fine scopes for the price, especilally if you have an analog scope to
use. They sell several other scopes of the same brand along with many
other items at a good price.

[tabb...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, 20 November 2018 16:34:52 UTC, et...@whidbey.com wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 08:21:51 +0800, Rheilly Phoull

> >An expert who has no knowledge of voltage dividers :-)

> I know what a voltage divider is and have used them for some DC stuff,
> but I don't know enough about AC signals to know if one would affect
> the way the signal looks on a scope.
> TYhjanks,
> Eric

it won't change the signal, except for very high frequencies far above audio


NT

[tabb...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, 20 November 2018 16:46:14 UTC, et...@whidbey.com wrote:

Not really, totally depends what you want


NT

[Phil Hobbs]

Does it have a separate A/D for the voltmeter, or is it stuck with 8-bit
resolution?

[Phil Hobbs]

My next one might be something with serial decode.

[et...@whidbey.com]

On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 08:52:58 -0800 (PST), Tim R <timot...@aol.com>
wrote:

Yeah, I usually buy beer in cans. More often now good beer is
available in cans. It used to be good local beer was only available in
brown bottles. It is truly amazing how much good beer there is today.
Eric

[et...@whidbey.com]

What does serial decode do?
Thanks,
Eric

[et...@whidbey.com]

I think you forgot to include a link.
Eric

[Phil Hobbs]

> What does serial decode do?

It reads out the hex data on a serial bus such as SPI or I2C. Sort of a
poor man's logic analyzer.

[Terry Schwartz]

I use a serial decode scope all the time -- to debug vehicle CAN bus transactions. It's more of a rich man's logic analyzer. It can do so much more than a logic analyzer.

Terry

[Ralph Mowery]

In article <ts49vd1oo1d69vlef...@4ax.com>,
et...@whidbey.com says...

>
> >Look into it at this company. They often put it on sale and with free
> >shipping. I bought one there and a friend did also. They seem to be
> >fine scopes for the price, especilally if you have an analog scope to
> >use. They sell several other scopes of the same brand along with many
> >other items at a good price.
> >
> I think you forgot to include a link.
> Eric
>
>

https://www.circuitspecialists.com/digital-storage-oscilloscopes

Yes I did.

[Ralph Mowery]

In article <pt1msq$722$1...@dont-email.me>,
pcdhSpamM...@electrooptical.net says...

>
> Does it have a separate A/D for the voltmeter, or is it stuck with 8-bit
> resolution?
>
>
>

I don't know how it determins the voltage. It does give the frequency
and time period. Not too sure how accurate it is, but did read a 9 volt
battery to 2 decimal places, but I did not check it with my digital
voltmeter to see how close it was. For all I know it could have been
off half a volt. I don't use it when I want a ver accurate volt
measurment,but as I am just using it for hobby work, good enough for me
most of the time. This is not a high dollar test instrument.

[Phil Allison]

Tim Schwartz wrote:
> Eric,
>
> I'd suggest using a voltmeter (analog or digital, whatever you
> prefer)for the DC voltage measurements. I like my old Heathkit VTVM for
> troubleshooting, as you are unlikely to cause any serious damage to the
> meter, as could happen with a digital.
>
>

** Yes - plus VTVMs have wide frequency response on the AC ranges unlike the vast majority of hand held DMMs.

> The scope you have is all you need, as what you need it for is the AC
> part of the waveform. Set the scope to AC coupling at the input and
> you'll be looking at the ripple on the supply.

** Ripple voltage on the first filter cap ( after the rectifier) in a PSU looks *sawtooth* shaped - not sine wave. The voltage rises sharply during charging and falls slowly when discharging.

> If the ripple exceeds 400 volts (8 divisions at 5 volts each is 40Vp-p
> and with a 10x probe that gets you to 400Vp-p) then something is seriously
> wrong with your power supply or measurement technique,

** That is a massive understatement !!.

Ripple voltage during normal operation should not be greater than 10% of the DC supply voltage. So, for a 400VDC supply, the p-p ripple seen on a scope should not exceed 40Volts. An AC voltmeter will show about 14V instead, long as there is a cap ( say 0.1uF) in series to block the DC voltage.



... Phil

[jurb...@gmail.com]

>"I have a TEK 465B oscilloscope and it has served me well until now
diagnosing my CNC equipment. All the voltages I have needed to measure have been below 50 volts. But looking at the 'scope it seems like at the 10x setting on the probes the highest voltage I can measure is 200 volts. That's 4 divisions at 50 volts per division. And that's peak to peak, not RMS. I do have one 20x TEK probe, a P5120, that I used for measuring the mains power, but the voltages inside tube equipment go much higher. "

Get a 100:1 probe. They have them on eBay for less than $20. If you don't like eBay there are alternatives. that will igve you 500V/div. at the highest setting. Don't use it on AC coupling though it takes 10 times as long to settle. Well you can buti t takes 10 times as long to settle.

>"If you all think another 'scope should be in my future I would love some advice. "

The only way a scope would help is if you get an older one that goes up to 20V/div. which would be 200V/div. at 10:1. I keep at least one around just for that. A probe is cheaper unless you want to trade me that 465B for an older Tenma or B&K or something with the higher voltage ranges, but only 15 or 20 MHz bandwidth.

>"Now before everybody starts giving me advice about high voltages
and all that I need everybody to know that I am expert and know all
there is to know about working with high voltages."

Famous last words, right up there with "y'all watch this" but I am not your Mommy. I can tell you this, you ain't been shocked until you been shocked by tube equipment. If you really want some thrills try the cathode of a damper tube in a color TV from the 1960s.

>"Don't waste my time telling me to put down my drink before I start working around high voltages."

That is a very foolhardy attitude, you could spill it !

>"I always use plastic cups for my drinks when working with
high voltages."

Pussy.

>"Oh, and I don't put any salt on the rims of my Bloody
Marys either."

That's a tokillya sunrise you sot.

>"They keep my hands from shaking too much in the morning."

The shakes is not from alcohol withdrawal, it is from mineral deficiencies. Get a comprehensive colloidal supplement and take a shot of that before your eye opener every morning.

>"I just watched a video about isolation transformers, how to build
one in a proper enclosure and how to use it properly."

Don't bother with tube equipment unless it is blowing the line fuse. It doesn't like variacs much especially if it has a tube rectifier. Actually if you have selenium rectifiers use a DBT with all the tubes pulled. Also -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9UjxG8sN1c

>"And if anybody here thinks I could use some more advice about working around high voltages..."

If we don't hear from you anymore we'll figure yes. Update your will.

[peterw...@gmail.com]

A proper Bloody Mary has a salted rim.

Low potassium will cause cramps and shakes. Oranges, orange Juice, a banana, and so forth will address that issue nicely. V8 juice as well, tomato juice, more so.

[Phil Hobbs]

Yah, all that trace mineral nutritional data is super dodgy. Some grad
student in the '50s measured three bananas from a plot fertilized with
potash, and surprise surprise all bananas became "a good source of
potassium" forever, no matter what soil conditions they're grown in.

Nutrition 'science' is largely a cargo cult.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

[peterw...@gmail.com]

A banana is an edible fruit – botanically a berry – produced by several kinds of large herbaceous flowering plants in the genus Musa. In some countries, bananas used for cooking may be called "plantains", distinguishing them from dessert bananas.

Nutrition Facts
Bananas
Amount Per 1 medium (7" to 7-7/8" long) (118 g)
Calories 105
% Daily Value*
Total Fat 0.4 g 0%
Saturated fat 0.1 g 0%
Polyunsaturated fat 0.1 g
Monounsaturated fat 0 g
Cholesterol 0 mg 0%
Sodium 1 mg 0%
Potassium 422 mg 12%
Total Carbohydrate 27 g 9%
Dietary fiber 3.1 g 12%
Sugar 14 g
Protein 1.3 g 2%
Vitamin A 1% Vitamin C 17%
Calcium 0% Iron 1%
Vitamin D 0% Vitamin B-6 20%
Cobalamin 0% Magnesium 8%

Generally, the USDA does a pretty good nutritional analysis.

[Phil Hobbs]

Pretty good for nutrition facts, probably, but that's damning with faint
praise.

The fact that they're quoting potassium to three significant figures is
also not confidence-inspiring. That number is almost 1% of the dry
weight of the banana--if the soil isn't rich in potassium, where is it
going to come from?

[jurb...@gmail.com]

>"Yah, all that trace mineral nutritional data is super dodgy. Some grad student in the '50s measured three bananas from a plot fertilized with potash, and surprise surprise all bananas became "a good source of potassium" forever, no matter what soil conditions they're grown in."

Not dodgy, just that it is so much more profitable when people are in the dark. The obscene medical costs in the US, WHO GETS THAT MONEY ?

Reputable scientific sources recognize 24 minerals as essential, that means needed, for human life. Potassium is one that we need alot of, and it is a good thing that ALL plants have alot of it. sodium, at needing about 600-700 mg. is another large requirement, if you don't get enough, other than fainting spells guess what you got - HIGH BLOOD PRESSURE. Fancy that.

It is not dodgy but the real information is hard to find. I have a database on the subject with those references at the bottom, the little numbers etc., and I checked out a few and they were legit. So there is no bullshit here. In fact even the USDA recognizes those same 24 as essential but they do not publicize it. You guess why, that instead of telling people what they really need they would rather push carbs and allow things that run up the heart disease and diabetes rates.

>"Nutrition 'science' is largely a cargo cult."

Well I am 58 and my health does nothing but improve and I eat a variety of foods, based on my theories of mineral nutrition. I drink bacon grease and use buckets of salt, eat fat and all that shit and my numbers would make a soy boy drool in his alfalfa sprouts. I mean BP like 115/60, cholesterol 138 at 1.89, (that's right one point eight nine) and about seven months after the accident I beat their stress test and didn't hit target heart rate with everything they could throw at me. I don't get sick, my back only hurts where there is a fracture at L1 from the fall, and I have again started to shadow box with hand weights, used to use 15s but now use 10s. The 15s got broken actually... And I still have all my teethe and hair. Very little gray. (I think it was tin (Sn) deficiency that turns hair gray as well as affects the hearing. My hearing DOES suck though but I used to listen at 136dB for a long time. (I shit you not) My eyesight always sucked.

Many years ago I lived on fast food, pizza n shit and my knees were so bad I couldn't walk DOWN a flight of steps without excruciating pain, I also had chronic back problems. Once I learned how to really eat right, and the USDA has no clue, I improved drastically. Even my roids are about gone. The only broken bones I have ever had, despite the fights, car wrecks and all that shit were ribs and fingers. I used to lay on the floor and have a full grown Man stand on my chest as I smoked a cigarette. I used to work out with a cigarette or a joint in my mouth hitting it, not breathing as "they" say and now my ECG shows a prolonged QT, I don't know if that caused it or not, but it is possible. With my BP, the pulse pressure is so high it's like I have the heart of a 19 year old, and up until recently when I got a hardon I could probably hang ten pound on it.

If I had done what "they" say,I would have had knee replacements, possibly even hips, fused vertebrae, root canal and all the other shit Men my age need.

But I don't.

If you want my database email me and I'll send you a ZIP file with 25 web pages in it all written in HTML1, no chance of a virus or anything, not one character that wouldn't show up properly in Notepad.

Then you can decide who to believe.

[jurb...@gmail.com]

On Monday, November 26, 2018 at 2:01:14 PM UTC-5, pf...@aol.com wrote:
> A banana is an edible fruit – botanically a berry – produced by several kinds of large herbaceous flowering plants in the genus Musa. In some countries, bananas used for cooking may be called "plantains", distinguishing them from dessert bananas.
>

> Nutrition Facts <as if they know

> Bananas
> Amount Per 1 medium (7" to 7-7/8" long) (118 g)

> Calories 105 <does not mean a thing
> % Daily Value* <for whom ?
> Total Fat 0.4 g 0% <means nothing
> Saturated fat 0.1 g 0% <means nothing
> Polyunsaturated fat 0.1 g <means nothing
> Monounsaturated fat 0 g <means nothing
> Cholesterol 0 mg 0% <means nothing
> Sodium 1 mg 0% <means very little unless you are deficient in other minerals or only use table salt with the anti-clumping agent in it
> Potassium 422 mg 12% <average
> Total Carbohydrate 27 g 9% <the less the better
> Dietary fiber 3.1 g 12% <means nothing
> Sugar 14 g <the less the better
> Protein 1.3 g 2% <the more the better
> Vitamin A 1% <means very little
> Vitamin C 17% <should not mean anything but it does for the last 10,000 years or so, I suspect SOME do not need it but don't take the chance
> Calcium 0% <very important to get
> Iron 1% <also important
> Vitamin D 0% <somewhat important
> Vitamin B-6 20% <means nothing unkless injected intravenously
> Cobalamin 0% < means very litle
> Magnesium 8% <important

>

> Generally, the USDA does a pretty good nutritional analysis.
>

Actually no they do not.

I got the balls to say that ? YES. You want the database ? Email me.

[peterw...@gmail.com]

Remember that crying wolf is useful only when the wolf exists,is a threat - and your audience is not tired of hearing about it.

Rodale died on-camera just after claiming he would live to be 100.

[Fox's Mercantile]

On 11/26/18 2:04 PM, jurb...@gmail.com wrote:
Nothing of importance as usual.

Just the usual chest beating about how better he is than
anyone else.


--
"I am a river to my people."
Jeff-1.0
WA6FWi
http:foxsmercantile.com

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Mon, 26 Nov 2018 11:55:03 -0500, Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamM...@electrooptical.net> wrote:

>Yah, all that trace mineral nutritional data is super dodgy. Some grad
>student in the '50s measured three bananas from a plot fertilized with
>potash, and surprise surprise all bananas became "a good source of
>potassium" forever, no matter what soil conditions they're grown in.
>
>Nutrition 'science' is largely a cargo cult.
>Cheers
>Phil Hobbs

At first, I thought it has to be much better than that. I couldn't
find anything specific on the equipment or methods that the FDA uses
to populate the ubiquitous nutrition facts label except that its
derived from a database maintained by the US Dept of Agriculture:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutrition_facts_label>
<https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/>
Only 928 different banana foods lists. Ugh. Selecting a raw banana
from the list, I find:
<https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/09040?fgcd=&manu=&format=&count=&max=25&offset=&sort=default&order=asc&qlookup=banana&ds=&qt=&qp=&qa=&qn=&q=&ing=>
containing Potassium between 290mg and 806mg per 100gram banana
depending on how it's pre-processed. Click on "full report" button
for a list of accepted values and long lists of data sources.

A similar discussion:
"How do they measure the nutritional data of food? How accurate are
the labels?"
<https://www.quora.com/How-do-they-measure-the-nutritional-data-of-food-How-accurate-are-the-labels>
<https://www.quora.com/How-are-the-nutrition-facts-on-food-labels-verified>
In the majority of cases, the producer of a food product
looks up each of the ingredients in a food database, and
determine the nutritional contribution of each ingredient
in the recipe based on it's weight. The USDA maintains
a large database of foods (raw and processed) for reference.

Perhaps you're correct. The USDA data might be garbage, assuming the
database was originally populated with inaccurate data, and that no
effort has been made to fix the problem. Maybe just add a few more
significant figures to the data so that it looks more accurate.

Banana:
<https://www.checkyourfood.com/ingredients/ingredient/62/banana>
Not high in potassium as popularly thought but still good
for your immune system and mood.
Oops. No wonder my ancient Geiger counter doesn't show much activity
from the K-40.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_equivalent_dose>


--
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

[Phil Hobbs]

I'd be super glad to be corrected on those points--I'd far prefer to
have confidence in the data I'm presented with, especially since some of
the conclusions I'm invited to make have serious health repercussions.

[tabb...@gmail.com]

Nutrition science covers the full quality range, as does any other medical topic. The ones to look at are metastudies. Nutritional healthcare worked wonders for me.


NT

[jurb...@gmail.com]

>"Rodale died on-camera just after claiming he would live to be 100. "

You mean Dr. R.J. Rodale ? Well he was wrong.

If he can be wrong so can others.

If this is the one I am thinking of he was into purity and no additives and all that shit, and one day he started getting dizzy spells. Supposedly found out that a neighboring farmer had used pesticides on his crops and the fumes or whatever were affecting him adversely.

Avoiding all the poisons without paying careful attention to what you DO need to eat is not going to work. And all the poisons are not avoidable so forget it - to a point. Still avoid GMOs but not because you might grow a third arm or some shit, but because GMOs are developed pretty much to survive more potent poisons, i.e. pesticides. That would specifically be glysophate or however they spell it. Those vegetables grown with that shit all over the are porous which means it will soak in and there is no way to wash it off. It is a known carcinogen. In fact that was found a long time ago but Monsanto had the research quashed. The current class action lawsuit serves them right and I hope they lose big, motherfuckers don't care if they kill us to make money. That pesticide also wrecks the soil for non GMO crops. The residue will kill anything not GMOed to survive it.

If you are healthy, and that means like up to 70 trace minerals in the proper proportion, you can withstand many additives n shit, but not Monsanto's poison.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Mon, 26 Nov 2018 21:16:31 -0500, Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamM...@electrooptical.net> wrote:

>On 11/26/18 5:10 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

>> <https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/>

>I'd be super glad to be corrected on those points--I'd far prefer to
>have confidence in the data I'm presented with, especially since some of
>the conclusions I'm invited to make have serious health repercussions.
>Cheers
>Phil Hobbs

Well, if I can't convince you that the USDA Food Composition Database
is reasonably accurate by the number of decimal places, voluminous
source data, and the large number of citations, perhaps a "what-if"
sanity check might be helpful. That's what I do when an assertion or
conclusion doesn't quite ring true. I ask myself:
If the USDA database was populated in the 1950's by slave
labor (grad students) and never verified, what might I
also expect to be true or to happen?

1. The data would conflict by food databases from other countries.
For example, Australia:
<http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/science/monitoringnutrients/ausnut/ausnutdatafiles/Pages/foodnutrient.aspx>
Line number 2653 for
"Banana, cavendish, peeled, raw"
shows 346mg potassium, which is quite close to the USDA nominal figure
of 358mg per 100grams. I haven't checked any other databases, but I
can look around for discrepancies if necessary.

2. Food and supplement producers that rely on potency claims to sell
their products would have an interest in stabilizing the official
figures so that their products would always be higher potency than
typical. A common variation of this need for stability is the
declared weight of the contents of packaged food. The weight can be
greater, but never less than the stated value (unless the listed item
is deemed undesirable). Same with nutritional values.

3. The nutritional values listed have been used in thousands of
health and medical experiments since the database was corrected. If
there were any errors, experiments based on the data would also show
discrepancies or at least large variations in results which would
attract suspicion. I haven't seen any of that in the press.

Enough for now.

[jurb...@gmail.com]

>"Enough for now."

Not quite.

I do not question their numerical accuracy, and in fact it really isn't all that critical nor could it be.

Vitamins are irrelevant, minerals are what you need. Their numerical accuracy means nothing, like the number of grains of rice per capita in Zimbabwe. (probably among the lowest in the world lol)

I would like to see the figures on all 24 of the minerals recognized as essential by every health organization in the world not run by hyenas. And being essential, and recognized as such, how come they are not out spreading information about that ?

Energy, ba. Fiber, I shit just fine. What's next, ash like in fish food ? Gimme the numbers on the minerals dammit.

Database for the email. Draw your own conclusions. Don't say I didn't offer.

Look at;

https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/45287885?fgcd=&manu=&format=Full&count=&max=25&offset=&sort=default&order=asc&qlookup=bone+broth&ds=&qt=&qp=&qa=&qn=&q=&ing=

TWENTY FOUR recognized as ESSENTIAL. Count how many they give. And it is impossible for the ones not mentioned to be of insignificant quantity because the livestock is given mineral (not vitamin)supplements. They require approximately the same 24 we do, and they are there but not reported.

Here they give more;

https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/12078

Why ? Beef bone broth MUST have more different minerals in it than ANY plant for the same reason we need them.Plants do not move, breathe, think, talk, any of that shit. they are fertilized with what they need,nit what we need. The producers are paid by the pound,not the content. Why pay like 50 times as much on enriching the soil for ZERO PROFIT. Most people don't know shit about essential minerals so it is of absolutely no advertising value. With that and extremely higher costs of operation, would YOU ? Would YOU care enough about your fellow Man to go broke giving them good foods in the market with zero recognition for it, and like I said, go broke. Your kids starve so total strangers are more healthy ?

That is not the American way, hell that is not the anything way.

[peterw...@gmail.com]

Let's look at this a bit more closely:

Aluminum Oxide, Titanium, Strontium, Barium, Zirconium, Fluorine, Cerium, Rubidium, Chlorine, Lanthanium, Nickel, Neodymium, Praeseodymium, Gallium, Cadmium, Scandium, Molybdenum, Cobalt, Lithium, Niobium, Samarium, Thorium, Mafnium, Cesium, Gadolinium, Holmium, Dysprosium, Uranium, Bromine, Europium, Tin, Antimony, Ytterbium, Terbium, Tungsten, Mercury, Silver, Tantalum, Thuliam, Luteium, Indium, Shenium, Beryllium, Erbium, Thallium, Bismuth, Germanium, Iridium, Rhodium, Palladium, Hydrogen, Carbon, Nitrogen.

The above are included in the "72" list as advertised by any number of trace-mineral supplement sites.

Not listed are the more obvious items such as calcium, phosphorus, magnesium, sodium, potassium, chloride, sulfur, iron, manganese, copper, iodine, zinc, cobalt, fluoride and selenium. Which get you to the 72.

Cadmium is highly toxic (and cumulative) in other than vanishingly small amounts. And, is listed amongst the Most toxic elements together with Beryllium, Chromium, Selenium (necessary, but too much is highly toxic), cesium and a few others. Brute fact: Most of the items on that first list are sufficiently toxic that any amount one could see in its pure form would be a bad idea to ingest. And even in its most common salt (sodium chloride as one example), moderation would be advised at the least, and avoidance more likely.

The problem with listing items as 'necessary for life' without further discussion is that the issue of toxicity is ignored. Vitamin A is good. Too much is toxic. Iron is good, too much is toxic - and so forth.

There is a theory that Human blood apart from specific cells approximates the structure of seawater when the human precursors first popped up - and so the need for these "72" were born. And as with most life, certain creatures 'fix' certain elements - such as mushrooms and selenium, bananas and potassium, shrimp and iodine - you get the picture. Omnivores - creatures with long guts, but a single stomach - generally are exposed to all that they need based on their eating habits. But, not always. Goiter and Iodine is an example of that phenomenon.

Cutting to the chase, the problems with identifying _every_ trace element are:

a) That an element is present does not make it necessary.
b) If the mechanism by which it functions is not understood, then neither is the difference between therapeutic and toxic levels.
c) Enough may be enough, but too much is quite often deadly. And in the case of some - very subtly deadly.
d) How individuals metabolize varies. And therefore tolerance to some elements. Cats, dogs, and many primarily carnivores cannot tolerate common foods humans enjoy. And birds will eat choke-cherries, mistletoe berries, bittersweet and hemlock with no ill effects. Hummingbirds and bees will fertilize foxglove and acanthus without consequence.

Point being that Humans do not know when to stop.

[jurb...@gmail.com]

You've done the homework. Good.

>"a) That an element is present does not make it necessary."

There are some we get plenty of so it is not concern.

>"b) If the mechanism by which it functions is not understood, then neither is the difference between therapeutic and toxic levels."

Hold on there. That statement is off somehow. There is always a difference between therapeutic and toxic. It is true however, that some are more important than others. What's more, the levels needed or toxic will vary person to person especially among those with different lineage. There is proof of this though indirect.

>"c) Enough may be enough, but too much is quite often deadly. And in the case of some - very subtly deadly."

True of anything. Years ago someone did die of water poisoning. It was a water drinking contest, like they h ave taco, pizza or hot wing eating contests. I am not sure if the dead guy won...

>"d) How individuals metabolize varies. And therefore tolerance to some elements. Cats, dogs, and many primarily carnivores cannot tolerate common foods humans enjoy. And birds will eat choke-cherries, mistletoe berries, bittersweet and hemlock with no ill effects. Hummingbirds and bees will fertilize foxglove and acanthus without consequence. "

I think I said that about people, but it applies n spades to different animals. Dogs can eat damnear anything, try it. Koala bears only eat eucalyptus leaves, how they get along without some of the minerals which MUST be deficient in those leaves is unknown, at least to me. Likewise, how do Eskimos get vitamin C ? Humans lost the ability to manufacture C in body they say I think about 10,000 years ago. Why ? How ? And did this supposedly happen to all humans in the space of a few years or what ? It almost can't be environmental, that leaves evolutional. Right ? Not quite sure on that one. I have looked into that and found that they DO have a source of vitamin C, in whale skin. Vitamin C is destroyed at 374F, so I imagine they're not deep frying it and if you've eaten skin, fried is the way to eat it. So they really sit around and eat whale skin ?

The database I offered does contain a significant amount of information on what some of those minerals actually do in the body. It gives information on symptoms of deficiency, diseases that coincide with certain deficiencies, recommended level and sources. The problem is it only has that information on about 20 of them. there are quite a few more. Also, there are a few about which they have little information at all.

Since this hijack was successful (hi Raul, tell Fidel I send him my best) I might excerpt from that to illustrate what is in it. I used to host the files on Dropbox but me and them don't see eye to eye on a couple of things.

[peterw...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, November 28, 2018 at 3:16:49 PM UTC-5, jurb...@gmail.com wrote:

> >"b) If the mechanism by which it functions is not understood, then neither is the difference between therapeutic and toxic levels."
>
> Hold on there. That statement is off somehow. There is always a difference between therapeutic and toxic. It is true however, that some are more important than others. What's more, the levels needed or toxic will vary person to person especially among those with different lineage. There is proof of this though indirect.

I repeat: If you do not know how a mechanism functions, nor what it actually does, nor why it exists, then you cannot know whether it is operating properly or not, whether it is necessary, or not. And whether what it is producing is useful, or not. Nor are you able to recognize, understand, or describe why a given mechanism may be good (therapeutic) or bad (Toxic).

Keep in mind that the core of your premise is that these "72" are necessary for proper metabolism, that is, life. Per William of Occcam, It either is, or it ain't. Can't be both.

[tabb...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, 28 November 2018 17:45:16 UTC, pf...@aol.com wrote:

> Let's look at this a bit more closely:
>
> Aluminum Oxide, Titanium, Strontium, Barium, Zirconium, Fluorine, Cerium, Rubidium, Chlorine, Lanthanium, Nickel, Neodymium, Praeseodymium, Gallium, Cadmium, Scandium, Molybdenum, Cobalt, Lithium, Niobium, Samarium, Thorium, Mafnium, Cesium, Gadolinium, Holmium, Dysprosium, Uranium, Bromine, Europium, Tin, Antimony, Ytterbium, Terbium, Tungsten, Mercury, Silver, Tantalum, Thuliam, Luteium, Indium, Shenium, Beryllium, Erbium, Thallium, Bismuth, Germanium, Iridium, Rhodium, Palladium, Hydrogen, Carbon, Nitrogen.
>
> The above are included in the "72" list as advertised by any number of trace-mineral supplement sites.

as ever not all agree with that list

> Not listed are the more obvious items such as calcium, phosphorus, magnesium, sodium, potassium, chloride, sulfur, iron, manganese, copper, iodine, zinc, cobalt, fluoride and selenium. Which get you to the 72.
>
> Cadmium is highly toxic (and cumulative) in other than vanishingly small amounts. And, is listed amongst the Most toxic elements together with Beryllium, Chromium, Selenium (necessary, but too much is highly toxic), cesium and a few others. Brute fact: Most of the items on that first list are sufficiently toxic that any amount one could see in its pure form would be a bad idea to ingest. And even in its most common salt (sodium chloride as one example), moderation would be advised at the least, and avoidance more likely.

I don't think anyone suggests easting great amounts of trace minerals, so no problem

> The problem with listing items as 'necessary for life' without further discussion is that the issue of toxicity is ignored. Vitamin A is good. Too much is toxic. Iron is good, too much is toxic - and so forth.

it's not ignored at all

> There is a theory that Human blood apart from specific cells approximates the structure of seawater when the human precursors first popped up - and so the need for these "72" were born. And as with most life, certain creatures 'fix' certain elements - such as mushrooms and selenium, bananas and potassium, shrimp and iodine - you get the picture. Omnivores - creatures with long guts, but a single stomach - generally are exposed to all that they need based on their eating habits. But, not always. Goiter and Iodine is an example of that phenomenon.
>
> Cutting to the chase, the problems with identifying _every_ trace element are:
>
> a) That an element is present does not make it necessary.
> b) If the mechanism by which it functions is not understood, then neither is the difference between therapeutic and toxic levels.

that's not logical. The chemical link between boron & arthritis isn't known afaik - icbw - but the pattern of high arthritis in low boron countries & vice versa is very much noticed. It's also not hard to find out what dose & form people have been taking & find that it's safe. No mysteries there. Lots of what goes on in the body we don't fully understand - or often understand much about at all.

> c) Enough may be enough, but too much is quite often deadly. And in the case of some - very subtly deadly.

not sure how death can be subtle.

> d) How individuals metabolize varies. And therefore tolerance to some elements. Cats, dogs, and many primarily carnivores cannot tolerate common foods humans enjoy. And birds will eat choke-cherries, mistletoe berries, bittersweet and hemlock with no ill effects. Hummingbirds and bees will fertilize foxglove and acanthus without consequence.

sure. not a problem.

> Point being that Humans do not know when to stop.

Oh we do. The method of filtering out unsafe medical treatments that has been used for millennia may seem a bit crude but it does work. When that's what you've got it's what you use - or go without the cure.


NT

[tabb...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, 28 November 2018 20:16:49 UTC, jurb...@gmail.com wrote:

> The database I offered does contain a significant amount of information on what some of those minerals actually do in the body. It gives information on symptoms of deficiency, diseases that coincide with certain deficiencies, recommended level and sources. The problem is it only has that information on about 20 of them. there are quite a few more. Also, there are a few about which they have little information at all.

I'd be interested to see your info. If you email to my addy I can go check it. Cheers,


NT

[jurb...@gmail.com]

>"I repeat: If you do not know how a mechanism functions, nor what it actually does, nor why it exists, then you cannot know whether it is operating properly or not, whether it is necessary, or not. "

Analyse your diet and eliminate everything with chromium and vanadium in it. Do that for two years and eat plenty of sweets, white refined sugar would be best. Now see what happens WITHOUT looking up the chemical reactions dealing with the pancreas, insulin and sugar metabolism in the body.

Your diabetes will be evidence enough. Of course they do know of the chemical reactions, but the point is for YOU not to know, and in such a condition, you will know it is essential.

The statement is not completely worng, it just needs qualification.

>"And whether what it is producing is useful, or not. Nor are you able to recognize, understand, or describe why a given mechanism may be good (therapeutic) or bad (Toxic)."

If you are in good health or bad is an indicator. Perhaps not empirical proof but a definite strong indicator. People have been convicted of murder and executed on such indicators.

>"Keep in mind that the core of your premise is that these "72" are necessary for proper metabolism, that is, life."

It is not purely a matted of breathing. I don't mind dying but I want to be healthy when I do it. You can exist with heart disease, diabetes, liver and kidney problems, no gall bladder, prostrate problems, roids, deaf, near blind, no teeth and brittle bones. You can exist for a long time like that. Do you want to ? derived and circumstantial evidence while not absolute, should not be discarded.

>"Per William of Occcam, It either is, or it ain't. Can't be both. "

Per someone else (Menken ?) there is always an answer that is simple - and WRONG. Yes, the razor applies to many things, but there are those things about which direct evidence is not available. That does not mean the proper course of action is to totally disregard everything, throw your hands up in apathy and quit.

For example it is damn hard to tell if someone is actually getting their minerals. Even if ingested not everyone metabolises them the same or at the same rate. What might work for one may be totally unassimilated for another. Some respond better to chelated supplements, others colloidal.

The only way to tell for sure is to perform biopsies on several organs, that is invasive and dangerous. So what is the most logical course of action ? Cower all the bases.

If you have no idea what the toxic level of something is, which of course varies according to the compound in which it is ingested, it can be estimated by the relative levels found in healthily grown foods. You need chromium, eating wrenches though will not supply you with anything. Chromium picolinate for example, might.

Soon, I am going to paste one of the pages form the database here and we'll see what those people know and don't know. In fact there are some things they don't know and they come out and flatly say it.

[jurb...@gmail.com]

Is that tabypurr ? I don't seem to be able to get it using the Google interface. If so it is on its way soon.

[jurb...@gmail.com]

This is one of the pages from the database. It is succinct and contains more than the word count would suggest. Fonts and point sizes are of course lost, I just hope I don't have to redo the line feeds...:-)

-----

Copper

Copper is an essential trace element for humans, animals and many plants. The average adult contains between 75 and 150 mg copper and about half of this is contained in the skeleton and the muscles. Copper is most concentrated in the brain and liver.

What it does in the body

Copper is an important component in many enzymes in the body. A copper- containing enzyme plays a vital role in energy production in cells. The activity of this enzyme is highest in the heart, brain, liver and kidney.

Connective tissue formation

An enzyme responsible for the production of the connective tissue proteins, collagen and elastin, requires copper. It is therefore necessary for the development and maintenance of blood vessels, skin, bone and joints.

Iron metabolism and blood

Copper is involved in the release of iron from storage sites and is involved in the formation of bone marrow and the maturation of red blood cells.

Brain and nervous system

Copper is necessary for the synthesis of cell membrane phospholipids, and so helps maintain myelin, the insulating sheath that surrounds nerve cells. It also helps regulate neurotransmitter levels.

Antioxidant

Copper is part of the enzyme copper-zinc superoxide dismutase, an antioxidant vital for protection against free radical damage. Maintaining the correct balance between zinc and copper is important in many body functions involving superoxide dismutase.

Immune system

Copper is important in developing resistance to infection. During inflammation or infection, two copper-containing compounds, superoxide dismutase and ceruloplasmin, are mobilized in the body. Copper is also necessary for T cell function and maturation.

Cardiovascular system

Copper is essential for the contractility of heart muscle. It is also necessary for the healthy function of small blood vessels that control blood flow and nutrient and waste exchange. It is also necessary for the functioning of the muscles of the blood vessels and is involved in the functioning of blood vessel linings and platelets which may play a role in blood clotting.1

Other functions

The formation of melanin, a natural coloring pigment found in skin and hair, involves a copper-dependent enzyme. The enzyme histaminase, which metabolizes histamine, requires copper. Copper is involved in fat and cholesterol metabolism and in the normal functioning of insulin which regulates glucose metabolism. It also contributes to the synthesis of prostaglandins, compounds that regulate a variety of functions such as heartbeat, blood pressure and wound-healing.

Absorption and metabolism

Around 30 per cent of dietary intake of copper is absorbed in the stomach and upper intestine. It is transferred across the gut wall and carried to the liver where it combines with proteins including ceruloplasmin. This protein is released into the blood and carries copper to body tissues. Adequate protein improves copper absorption. Excretion is mostly via secretion in bile into the gastrointestinal tract and then elimination in the feces.

Deficiency

Symptoms of copper deficiency in babies include failure to thrive, pale skin, anemia, diarrhea, lack of pigment in hair and skin, and prominent dilated veins. In adults, symptoms include anemia, water retention, weakness of blood vessel walls, irritability, brittle bones, hair depigmentation, poor hair texture and loss of sense of taste.

Children at risk of deficiency include those with Menkes' syndrome, a rare disorder which means they are unable to absorb copper. Malnourished, premature infants and those who have iron deficiency anemia are also at risk. Milk, in general, is low in copper; although absorption from breast milk is more efficient than that from cow's milk and formula.

Those who eat large amounts of phytates which bind copper in the gut, those whose diets are highly refined, those who have prolonged diarrhea or those with high intakes of zinc, cadmium, fluoride or molybdenum may be at risk of deficiency.

Immune system

Copper deficiency can lead to reduced resistance to infection as white blood cell activity and cellular immune responses are reduced. The ratio of zinc to copper may also affect immune system effectiveness. Susceptibility to disease seems to increase when copper intake is high and zinc intake is low.

Nervous system

Copper deficiency can impair the function of the nervous system. This impairment causes poor concentration, numbness and tingling, and a variety of nervous system disorders.

Heart disease

A deficiency of copper may contribute to heart disease. Copper deficiencies have been associated with poor heart muscle, a drop in beneficial HDL cholesterol and an increase in harmful LDL cholesterol. In animals, copper intake has also been associated with weakening of heart connective tissue and rupture of blood vessels. Alterations in blood clotting mechanism and the muscular activity of blood vessels may also occur. The ratio of zinc to copper may be important in the regulation of blood cholesterol.

Collagen defects

Copper deficiency leads to poor collagen formation, the protein component of connective tissue which may result in bone deformities, damaged blood vessels, reduced resiliency of skin and other internal and external linings of the body.

Other problems

Copper intakes may be low in rheumatoid arthritis sufferers and may contribute to the incidence of the disease.2 Copper deficiency may also be involved in high blood pressure.3

Sources

Good food sources include liver, shellfish, brewer's yeast, olives, nuts, whole grains, beans and chocolate. Copper from food processing and storage, pesticides and fungicides in food and copper kettles also contribute to copper in the diet. Up to 70 per cent of the copper content of flour may be lost when it is refined.

Beef liver, fried 85g 3.77 mg

Peanuts ½ cup 1.59 mg

Walnuts 1 cup, chopped 1.58 mg

Sesame seeds ¼ cup 1.40 mg

Almonds 1 cup 1.27 mg

Sardines, canned in tomato sauce1 can 1.01 mg

Oysters 6 pieces 0.80 mg

Crab, cooked 1 cup 0.72 mg

Soybeans, cooked 1 cup 0.66 mg

Sunflower seeds ¼ cup 0.60 mg

Chickpeas, cooked 1 cup 0.55 mg

Avocado 1 avocado 0.53 mg

Lentils, cooked 1 cup 0.48 mg

Tofu ½ cup 0.47 mg

Wheatgerm ½ cup 0.44 mg

Kidney beans, cooked 1 cup 0.41 mg

Beet greens, cooked 1 cup 0.34 mg

Mushrooms, raw 1 cup, slices 0.32 mg

Spinach, cooked 1 cup 0.29 mg

Wholewheat spaghetti 1 cup 0.22 mg

Cocoa powder 1 tbsp 0.21 mg

Brown rice, cooked 1 cup 0.19 mg

Milk chocolate 1 bar 0.17 mg

Recommended dietary allowances

There is no RDA for copper. Safe and adequate intake is estimated to range from 1.5 to 3 mg per day. The UK RNI is 1.2 mg for adults.

Supplements

Copper supplements are available in various forms including copper amino acid chelate, copper gluconate and copper sulfate. Some experts feel that copper should not be supplemented as there is a fine line between therapeutic and toxic doses.

Toxic effects of excess intake

Toxicity of copper is thought to be fairly rare but high concentrations (daily intakes of 200 mg and over) can cause effects such as nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, diarrhea, muscle pains, heart problems, immune suppression and abnormal mental states. The lethal dose for copper may be as low as 3.5 g. Imbalance in the copper to zinc ratio may be an important factor in copper toxicity.

Patients with ulcerative colitis may accumulate copper in the tissues and the excess of copper may aggravate the disease. High copper levels may also be a risk factor for heart disease.

A study done in 1998 in Wisconsin suggests that high levels of copper in the water supply may increase the rate of gastrointestinal upsets. The researchers assessed copper levels in several homes with new water distribution systems. Their findings suggested that copper-contaminated drinking water was a common cause of nausea, diarrhea, abdominal cramps, and headaches in areas where water supplies are naturally corrosive.4

Wilson's disease

Wilson's disease is a rare genetic disorder affecting one in 30 000 people, in which the liver is unable to remove copper from the body. Excessive amounts of copper accumulate, leading to symptoms of liver disease and loss of mental function. Drugs to remove excess copper, and zinc to promote excretion of copper, are used to treat Wilson's disease.

Therapeutic uses of supplements

Copper is used therapeutically to treat deficiency symptoms and iron deficiency anemia. Copper is present in expectorant cough mixtures, cough suppressant preparations and decongestants.

Heart disease

Copper supplements have been shown to have beneficial effects on the oxidation of blood fats. A 1997 study done over four weeks at Ohio State University found that 2 mg per day of copper increased the time taken for LDL cholesterol to become oxidized.5 This helps to reduce the damage these fats do to arteries and limits the build-up of atherosclerotic plaque.

Arthritis

The wearing of copper bracelets as a cure for arthritis is an old remedy which may have some scientific support. It is possible that the copper combines with compounds in the skin which are then absorbed and exert anti-inflammatory effects. Copper is part of ceruloplasmin which acts as both an anti-inflammatory agent and as an antioxidant, and plays a role in the body's reaction to inflammatory conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis.

Interactions with other nutrients

Copper to zinc ratio

Zinc and copper compete with each other for absorption. Excess zinc intake for prolonged periods can lead to copper deficiency. Altered copper to zinc ratios may play a role in several disorders including heart disease and some types of cancer including those of the breast, lung and gastrointestinal tract. There is some suggestion that this may be useful as a diagnostic test. Copper zinc ratios also seem to be high in violence-prone males (See page 323 for more information.)

Copper-zinc superoxide dismutase levels seem to be altered in rheumatoid arthritis. Those with the disease have higher serum copper/zinc superoxide dismutase levels than those without.6

Other vitamins and minerals

Iron and copper interact in several ways. Copper deficiency alters iron metabolism, causing it to accumulate in the liver. Excess iron can lead to copper deficiency. High molybdenum intakes may increase copper excretion. High doses of vitamin C may alter copper metabolism and lead to deficiency states.

1 Schuschke DA. Dietary copper in the physiology of the microcirculation. Nutr, 1997 Dec, 127:12, 2274-81

2 Kremer JM; Bigaouette J Nutrient intake of patients with rheumatoid arthritis is deficient in pyridoxine, zinc, copper, and magnesium. J Rheumatol, 1996 Jun, 23:6, 990-4

3 Lukaski HC; Klevay LM; Milne DB Effects of dietary copper on human autonomic cardiovascular function. Eur J Appl Physiol, 1988, 58:1-2, 74-80

4 Knobeloch L; Schubert C; Hayes J; Clark J; Fitzgerald C; Fraundorff A Gastrointestinal upsets and new copper plumbing-is there a connection? WMJ, 1998 Jan, 97:1, 49-53

5 Jones AA; DiSilvestro RA; Coleman M; Wagner TL Copper supplementation of adult men: effects on blood copper enzyme activities and indicators of cardiovascular disease risk. Metabolism, 1997 Dec, 46:12, 1380-3

6 Serum copper/zinc superoxide dismutase levels in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Mazzetti I; Grigolo B; Borzì RM; Meliconi R; Facchini A. Int J Clin Lab Res, 1996, 26:4, 245-9

Copyright Bookman Press 1998

nic...@bookman.com.au

-----

Think maybe the rest of that is worth a 130KB download ?

Also, when reading the whole thing you'll find they more than once mention that the mineral content of the foods depends upon the soil in which it is grown. You don't hear about this as they spout their shit about cholesterol and fat, it does not make a good case for commercial farming. If you don't think the land is played out ask a cattle farmer why his livestock gets comprehensive mineral supplements. Without them, the animals would not make it to market weight. They have no other incentive to pay for this except that now the USDA did get involved and start requiring them. Look it up. In fact the government surprised me doing something right, years ago an association of meat growers petitioned to be allowed to stop the supplements during the last month before slaughter. the government rejected their request.

Good. That shows just how much they care about their customers.

[tabb...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, 29 November 2018 06:35:01 UTC, jurb...@gmail.com wrote:

> You need chromium, eating wrenches though will not supply you with anything.

What? Damn!

[tabb...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, 29 November 2018 06:39:59 UTC, jurb...@gmail.com wrote:
> Is that tabypurr ? I don't seem to be able to get it using the Google interface. If so it is on its way soon.

Yup, at gmail dotty commy. If you sent it it didn't arrive.
thanks.


NT

[jurb...@gmail.com]

It was sent at 1:46. I did just notice though that I only used one "R". I just now sent it to tabbypurr, so it should be there. In fact I think we have had email before because as I put in the other "R" is popped up with a dropdown below with the address. So it should be there. Lemme know if it ain't.

[tabb...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, 29 November 2018 20:52:30 UTC, jurb...@gmail.com wrote:

> It was sent at 1:46. I did just notice though that I only used one "R". I just now sent it to tabbypurr, so it should be there. In fact I think we have had email before because as I put in the other "R" is popped up with a dropdown below with the address. So it should be there. Lemme know if it ain't.

thanks, got the email now, but no attachment :/ I suspect google stole it.


NT

[jurb...@gmail.com]

>"thanks, got the email now, but no attachment"

I'll try again later. If I have to I can burn a CD ad mail it, but I should try maybe to attach each file separatey ad let IT zip the funcking thing. Or better yet mayb I'll just copy and paste the whole fucking thing here ?

I dunno I just got up and am chcking for money in the mai. I'll be back

[tabb...@gmail.com]

We'll figure it out somehow. Computers are life changing but they're a real pita sometimes.


NT

[three_jeeps]

lol..'a CD'? how 1980's....try a file sharing site (drop box, etc.)

[tabb...@gmail.com]

I was putting data on cassette & floppy in the 80s - and rarely onto hard drive. That was 3.n" 5.n" and 8" floppies, in the opposite order.

ISTR it being quicker to hand a floppy to a taxi driver to deliver than it was to send the data at 300 baud.


NT

[tabb...@gmail.com]

Thank you, got it. Will look through this when I get the chance. I saw the first one, spotted one error, borax is less toxic than table salt.


NT

[jurb...@gmail.com]

>"Thank you, got it. Will look through this when I get the chance. I saw the first one, spotted one error, borax is less toxic than table salt. "

I think that might be a bit subjective. I read it, says about 100mg. I think. You actually need more sodium than that.

But you said table salt. Now here we have a situation, I have my own hypotheses about that, among which is that the anti-clumping agent in most common table salt is toxic because since it inhibits salt from combining with water, which makes up most of our bodies by the way, it could quite possibly adversely affect how it is metabolised in the body.

The sodium writeup mentions "sodium sensitive" people and I think I'll have to go along with that line of thinking because I eat a ton of salt and my blood pressure is fine. I am pretty sure my blood chemistry is different than most. My immune system is certainly superior. People say I'm fucking crazy, but when I do construction work for example, the outside stuff, if I cut myself I just let it bleed and keep doing what I was doing. "You're bleeding ", "Yeah". Everyone panics and tends to stop the bleeding. Unless the cut is VERY bad you are not going to run out. The blood gushing out cleans the wound. On me that's all it gets. "You need stitches !", "Naw, not really". I don't remember even having the flu. I had bad allergies but between desenstitizing myself with sulfur fumes and age the symptoms are very minor.

Friend of mine just made an observation about the Amish because he lives out by Amish country. They don't have heart diseases much, or cancer or any of that shit, and they do not vaccinate their kids. I do NOT want to start the vax/antivax argument but that is one little piece of evidence. Of course it could be diet as well, not eating so much commercially grown shit, no fast food. No a bunch of things.

I almost don't know why I bother, being 58. That is 23 years longer than I planned on living. In 12 years I'll be 70 and probably unable to raise hell. Plus I am pretty sure that unless we STOP this fucking "progress" I won't WANT to be alive. Then motherfuckers better watch out. Nobody here, I wouldn't even kill Slowman, maybe smack him around a little see if some sense might seep in. As far as an engineer he's probably the best thing since the butcher knife (I am carnivore) but as far as social/political issues, well it's hard to find a proper adjective.

Actually if you hadn't noticed yet, what I sent you is initially from Australia. Doctors don't get richer there when people get sick, and that is probably the ONE saving grace about socialised medicine.

I like when they run an ad for some toothpowder or some shit and say "four out of five dentists recommend...", yeah, you know what a dentist is ? When you have a boat and you are done "Breaking Out Another Thousand", the dentist is there to make sure you don't have any money left. Let me correct it - "Four out of five dentists' Mercedes dealers recommend...". I haven't been to one in about 45 years. That was to have a stubborn baby tooth pulled. I have never lost a tooth. At 58 I know it is inevitable but, hasn't happened yet. My Grandfather kept his all his life, my Parents though, no.

I remember someone saying years ago "Beware of foreign research, yeah I figured that out. Beware, it might be something useful rather than a fucking advertisement for the most wasteful place to throw your money.

You pay me to do research and the results will be whatever you say.

So now you see how they formatted that. It is actually excepts from a book and I didn't know how to save webpages yet the official right way, so I went into my internet cache and got them. In FILE MANAGER ! Note the DOS compatible filenames.

Anyhow, conclusions can be drawn from those pages. A link between boron deficiency and bladder stones ? Some doctors tell people to limit calcium. I think that is fucking nuts. The simple fact is that calcium needs other things to be used by the body, like magnesium, the aforementioned boron, couple other things. If it doesn't have the other ingredients the calcium goes into the blood where it does not belong.

Of course there's that other 20 years of research I did with no real record of it. I never thought of the possibility of having to prove anything, I just wanted to know for myself and a few friends. I also have a bunch of files form the USDA back in that era, I think some of the foods analyses included 12 minerals, not sure. I'll have to dig that up. In fact I got rid of all my harddrives recently so now it is all SATA. They were really getting old so now I got 1.58TB soon to become 2.58TB but I need an IDE burner to do it. I got one. But I had to really look to find those files. Everything is moved, but the drive letters seem to have stayed put, so I got up to drive T now. By the time I figure out where everything is I'll probably need a new PC. That will be a sad day. It took me YEARS to get this customized, and even though it is XP it seems to be quite secure. It is not the standard version.

Anyway, those pages almost warrant a thread of their own.

More later, gonna go raise some hell somewhere.

[tabb...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, 1 December 2018 15:27:36 UTC, jurb...@gmail.com wrote:
nt:

> >"Thank you, got it. Will look through this when I get the chance. I saw the first one, spotted one error, borax is less toxic than table salt. "
>
> I think that might be a bit subjective. I read it, says about 100mg. I think. You actually need more sodium than that.

The LD50 for borax is greater tan for sodium chloride. It's funny, on one occasion I mentioned one of the treatments I use to the NHS and was told to not do that, instead come & do our method which I already know is dramatically more toxic & less effective.

> People say I'm fucking crazy, but when I do construction work for example, the outside stuff, if I cut myself I just let it bleed and keep doing what I was doing. "You're bleeding ", "Yeah". Everyone panics and tends to stop the bleeding. Unless the cut is VERY bad you are not going to run out. The blood gushing out cleans the wound. On me that's all it gets. "You need stitches !", "Naw, not really".

People just absorb what they're taught in childhood. Sometimes it's nothing short of funny, or would be if it weren't serious.

Take an example: what things are we generally told are the most dangerous that we interact with daily? Gas & electricity. Electricity electrocutes about 20 people a year here (mainly people doing stupid things with it). And about 450 die in house fires a year. Cars kill over 3,500 & injure 10,000, even stairs kill & maim 1,000 a year. The top 2 killers are heart disease & cancer, taking 50% of the population, 6 figures per year. Many mainstream experts reckon around half of those death are easily preventable with better diet, exercise & not smoking. So the most dangerous thing we interact with each week? The supermarket. But you try telling people that.

> Friend of mine just made an observation about the Amish because he lives out by Amish country. They don't have heart diseases much, or cancer or any of that shit, and they do not vaccinate their kids. I do NOT want to start the vax/antivax argument but that is one little piece of evidence. Of course it could be diet as well, not eating so much commercially grown shit, no fast food. No a bunch of things.

Longevity comes into it too, changes the balance from one cause of death to another. Sometimes you just can't separate the factors.

> I almost don't know why I bother, being 58. That is 23 years longer than I planned on living. In 12 years I'll be 70 and probably unable to raise hell. Plus I am pretty sure that unless we STOP this fucking "progress" I won't WANT to be alive. Then motherfuckers better watch out. Nobody here, I wouldn't even kill Slowman, maybe smack him around a little see if some sense might seep in. As far as an engineer he's probably the best thing since the butcher knife (I am carnivore) but as far as social/political issues, well it's hard to find a proper adjective.

I wouldn't want to have to rely on his engineering skills in most areas. Socially, people like that punish themselves. I got a choice what I feed my head with, and it's not gonna be his bs.

> Actually if you hadn't noticed yet, what I sent you is initially from Australia. Doctors don't get richer there when people get sick, and that is probably the ONE saving grace about socialised medicine.

We have socialised medicine. It's no solution, they still get paid when you're ill, doesn't matter that it's someone else paying. Hence it's maintenance rather than cure too often. Sometimes it's just bs to get paid.

> You pay me to do research and the results will be whatever you say.

That's one big elephant in the room. It's widely realised that /most/ medical research results are wrong, yet they continue to be relied on far too much. NICE is a nice idea, but too many times fails to ask enough questions to reach the right answer.

> Anyway, those pages almost warrant a thread of their own.

probably several.
Cheers


NT