Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Deoxt
137 views
Skip to first unread message
Ralph Mowery
Jul 11, 2016, 3:19:45 PM7/11/16
to
I have not used it but just bought a spray can of Deoxit. From reading
about it, it seems to be the greatest stuff for cleaning contacts.
I have an old Tectronix Scope 465B that one chanel has a flakey input
switch. The manual says only to use isopropal alcohol to clean it
with, I did that with some 99% and it helped some, but thinking of
using some of the Deoxit on the switch. Would that be ok or not.
I would hate to mess up the switches as they would be almost impossiable
to find replacements for .
Dave Platt
Jul 11, 2016, 4:52:43 PM7/11/16
to
rules". They may know something we don't.
I've read a number of comments (Hi, Jeff!) that DeOxIt is *not* a good
thing to use on gold-plated contacts. Gold plating is often somewhat
porous, and the DeOxIt can creep through the pores down to the base
metal and may actually attack it. This can cause the gold plating to
fail.
CAIG makes a different product ("ProGold") which is intended for
gold-plated contacts, and if I understand correctly, it's intended to
avoid this problem.
Your Tek's switch may actually be suffering from contact wear, rather
than contact surface contamination. If I recall properly, the
delicate contact fingers in the switch do "rub" slightly on the
contact pads when the switch is activated, and over time this can wear
away the gold plating, and the contact don't work well after that.
Cleaning (with ispropanol or anything else) isn't going to help this
situation more than very temporarily.
I haven't found a solution (so to speak :-) ) for this sort of
problem, other than an actual repair of the switch (replace the
contact fingers) and as you note, this may not be possible due to lack
of available parts.
jurb...@gmail.com
Jul 11, 2016, 4:58:34 PM7/11/16
to
When in doubt, put some Deoxit on a Qtip and rub the plastic body of the switch. Check it for any softening. Try to scratch it with a dental pick. Then try to scratch an untouched one.
The danger is not to the contacts. I have seen acetone and Qdope thinner (which is toluene) do some very nasty things to plastic. If Deoxit has either in it you might be much better off sticking with the alcohol. Plus, Deoxit uses a chemical known as a reducer which actually uncorrodes the metal - thus the name. I really do ot know about the properties of that stuff.
The danger is not to the contacts. I have seen acetone and Qdope thinner (which is toluene) do some very nasty things to plastic. If Deoxit has either in it you might be much better off sticking with the alcohol. Plus, Deoxit uses a chemical known as a reducer which actually uncorrodes the metal - thus the name. I really do ot know about the properties of that stuff.
Ralph Mowery
Jul 11, 2016, 8:24:57 PM7/11/16
to
In article <4fdd5d-...@coop.radagast.org>, dpl...@coop.radagast.org
says...
this case the Deoxit was probably thought of years after the scope was
made.
Thanks for the advice of the Deoxit Gold. Maybe I will try that at some
point instead of the kind I have.
As stated above I have been repairing some electronics over the last 40
years as a hobby and never tried the Deoxit. As all reports seem to say
this stuff cures anything that WD 40 won't.. ( I never use WD 40 by the
way for various reasons.)
It has been a while from the last time I looked in the scope, but best I
remember that while the part you turn is a rotary switch, the contacts
are actually slide switches of sorts. Then as it was mentioned it may
attack the plastic. Some cleaners do and some don't. I used to use LPS
cleaner and never found plastic that it would affect.
says...
>
>
> First recommendation would be "stick to the manufacturer's
> rules". They may know something we don't.
>
> I've read a number of comments (Hi, Jeff!) that DeOxIt is *not* a good
> thing to use on gold-plated contacts. Gold plating is often somewhat
> porous, and the DeOxIt can creep through the pores down to the base
> metal and may actually attack it. This can cause the gold plating to
> fail.
>
> CAIG makes a different product ("ProGold") which is intended for
> gold-plated contacts, and if I understand correctly, it's intended to
> avoid this problem.
>
> Your Tek's switch may actually be suffering from contact wear, rather
> than contact surface contamination. If I recall properly, the
> delicate contact fingers in the switch do "rub" slightly on the
> contact pads when the switch is activated, and over time this can wear
> away the gold plating, and the contact don't work well after that.
> Cleaning (with ispropanol or anything else) isn't going to help this
> situation more than very temporarily.
>
> I haven't found a solution (so to speak :-) ) for this sort of
> problem, other than an actual repair of the switch (replace the
> contact fingers) and as you note, this may not be possible due to lack
> of available parts.
Usually it is best to stay with what the manufacturer recommends, but in
>
> First recommendation would be "stick to the manufacturer's
> rules". They may know something we don't.
>
> I've read a number of comments (Hi, Jeff!) that DeOxIt is *not* a good
> thing to use on gold-plated contacts. Gold plating is often somewhat
> porous, and the DeOxIt can creep through the pores down to the base
> metal and may actually attack it. This can cause the gold plating to
> fail.
>
> CAIG makes a different product ("ProGold") which is intended for
> gold-plated contacts, and if I understand correctly, it's intended to
> avoid this problem.
>
> Your Tek's switch may actually be suffering from contact wear, rather
> than contact surface contamination. If I recall properly, the
> delicate contact fingers in the switch do "rub" slightly on the
> contact pads when the switch is activated, and over time this can wear
> away the gold plating, and the contact don't work well after that.
> Cleaning (with ispropanol or anything else) isn't going to help this
> situation more than very temporarily.
>
> I haven't found a solution (so to speak :-) ) for this sort of
> problem, other than an actual repair of the switch (replace the
> contact fingers) and as you note, this may not be possible due to lack
> of available parts.
this case the Deoxit was probably thought of years after the scope was
made.
Thanks for the advice of the Deoxit Gold. Maybe I will try that at some
point instead of the kind I have.
As stated above I have been repairing some electronics over the last 40
years as a hobby and never tried the Deoxit. As all reports seem to say
this stuff cures anything that WD 40 won't.. ( I never use WD 40 by the
way for various reasons.)
It has been a while from the last time I looked in the scope, but best I
remember that while the part you turn is a rotary switch, the contacts
are actually slide switches of sorts. Then as it was mentioned it may
attack the plastic. Some cleaners do and some don't. I used to use LPS
cleaner and never found plastic that it would affect.
Jeff Liebermann
Jul 11, 2016, 8:30:02 PM7/11/16
to
On Mon, 11 Jul 2016 13:51:16 -0700, dpl...@coop.radagast.org (Dave
Platt) wrote:
>I've read a number of comments (Hi, Jeff!) that DeOxIt is *not* a good
>thing to use on gold-plated contacts.
That wasn't me. The problem is that Caig has juggled the formulation
Platt) wrote:
>I've read a number of comments (Hi, Jeff!) that DeOxIt is *not* a good
>thing to use on gold-plated contacts.
for Deoxit and/or Cramolin has changed over the years. My main
problem with the old stuff was that it uses oleic acid. Nothing wrong
with that since it's the acid that removes the oxides from the
contacts. The problem is that it will also attack copper if left on
the contacts for too long. I also found that I can make things worse
by mixing my own and using too much oleic acid. It will not attack
gold or silver plated contacts, so those are safe. So, if you're
using the old stuff with oleic acid, wash off the contacts with
alcohol after you've removed the black silver oxide coating.
Gold does not oxidize so using an oxide remover on gold contacts is a
total waste of time. At worst, gold contacts will have a layer of tar
produced by the last attempt to lubricate the contacts.
The rest of the formulation is some form of naphtha. Lots of things
contain various forms and mixes of naphtha. Usually, lighter fluid is
mentioned, but that might be to volatile. I use Coleman camp fuel,
which works well enough. Or, just buy the pure stuff:
<https://www.google.com/#q=naphtha&tbm=shop>
They all work.
Now, for the switches... Think about what you're trying to
accomplish. You're trying to remove a layer of some kind of oxide
from the contacts. You're also trying to remove any tar left over
from the previous attempt to lube the contacts. Any mild acid and
organic solvent will do that. You don't need anything super strong.
If you want something with some lubricant added, use contact cleaner,
or maybe mix in your favorite oil. Just make sure it doesn't turn
into a sticky tar when it evaporates.
Summary:
- If it's gold contacts, use alcohol because there's no oxides.
- If it's silver contacts, use contact cleaner, Deoxit, Cramolin, or
whatever removes the black silver oxide from the contacts. Then wash
it off with alcohol and leave it alone.
- I'm not a big fan of grease and oil as a contact lubricant.
--
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 Allison
Jul 11, 2016, 10:35:32 PM7/11/16
to
Ralph Mowery wrote:
>
>
> As stated above I have been repairing some electronics over the last 40
> years as a hobby and never tried the Deoxit. As all reports seem to say
> this stuff cures anything that WD 40 won't.. ( I never use WD 40 by the
> way for various reasons.)
>
** IME, good old WD40 cures many contact problems that DeOxit will not - particularly when penetration deep into a mechanism is required.
>
>
> As stated above I have been repairing some electronics over the last 40
> years as a hobby and never tried the Deoxit. As all reports seem to say
> this stuff cures anything that WD 40 won't.. ( I never use WD 40 by the
> way for various reasons.)
>
There are many similar products too, like CRC2-26 that have the same formulation and so do exactly the same job while costing more.
What the heck do you use ?
.... Phil
Phil Allison
Jul 11, 2016, 10:48:45 PM7/11/16
to
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>
> I also found that I can make things worse
> by mixing my own and using too much oleic acid. It will not attack
> gold or silver plated contacts, so those are safe. So, if you're
> using the old stuff with oleic acid, wash off the contacts with
> alcohol after you've removed the black silver oxide coating.
>
** The dark coating that forms on silver is *silver sulphate* (aka Ag2S).
>
> I also found that I can make things worse
> by mixing my own and using too much oleic acid. It will not attack
> gold or silver plated contacts, so those are safe. So, if you're
> using the old stuff with oleic acid, wash off the contacts with
> alcohol after you've removed the black silver oxide coating.
>
Luckily it is quite soft and wears off switch contacts in normal use so a build up may occur which can be flushed clean with products like WD40.
The idea of using oleic acid on electrical contacts worries as it must become conductive under enough voltage.
.... Phil
Ralph Mowery
Jul 11, 2016, 11:40:43 PM7/11/16
to
In article <f0d57e1f-3bb5-4750...@googlegroups.com>,
palli...@gmail.com says...
use Kroil as a penetrating type of oil and a few other usages.
For some cleaning of the grease off large pieces of metal
I use Ed's Red.
palli...@gmail.com says...
>
>
> >
>
> ** IME, good old WD40 cures many contact problems that DeOxit will not - particularly when penetration deep into a mechanism is required.
>
> There are many similar products too, like CRC2-26 that have the same formulation and so do exactly the same job while costing more.
>
> What the heck do you use ?
>
>
> .... Phil
>
Depends on what I am doing. Where many would use WD40 as a cleaner, I
>
> >
>
> ** IME, good old WD40 cures many contact problems that DeOxit will not - particularly when penetration deep into a mechanism is required.
>
> There are many similar products too, like CRC2-26 that have the same formulation and so do exactly the same job while costing more.
>
> What the heck do you use ?
>
>
> .... Phil
>
use Kroil as a penetrating type of oil and a few other usages.
For some cleaning of the grease off large pieces of metal
I use Ed's Red.
N_Cook
Jul 12, 2016, 4:12:57 AM7/12/16
to
in a switch, try on a scrapper example first
Phil Allison
Jul 12, 2016, 5:35:21 AM7/12/16
to
"Nutcase Kook " wrote:
>
>
>
> Doesn't WD40 attack certain plastic,
>
>
** More paranoid drivel from the resident looney.
>
>
>
> Doesn't WD40 attack certain plastic,
>
>
Yawwnnnnnnnnnnnn......
FYI:
None of the plastics used for switches, pots or connectors in electronics is affected by using WD40 - even when soaked in the liquid.
In any case, the volatile part evaporates in a short time leaving behind only a thin mineral oil residue.
.... Phil
Phil Hobbs
Jul 12, 2016, 9:51:03 AM7/12/16
to
parts that fail often. Dunno if the 465 has them or not, but the 485 does.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net
Wond
Jul 12, 2016, 11:02:52 AM7/12/16
to
On Mon, 11 Jul 2016 19:35:29 -0700, Phil Allison wrote:
> Ralph Mowery wrote:
>>
>>
>
>> As stated above I have been repairing some electronics over the last 40
>> years as a hobby and never tried the Deoxit. As all reports seem to
>> say this stuff cures anything that WD 40 won't.. ( I never use WD 40
>> by the way for various reasons.)
>>
>>
> ** IME, good old WD40 cures many contact problems that DeOxit will not
> - particularly when penetration deep into a mechanism is required.
>
> There are many similar products too, like CRC2-26 that have the same
> formulation and so do exactly the same job while costing more.
>
> What the heck do you use ?
>
>
> .... Phil
>
My favourite is Nu-Trol from MG Chemicals.
> Ralph Mowery wrote:
>>
>>
>
>> As stated above I have been repairing some electronics over the last 40
>> years as a hobby and never tried the Deoxit. As all reports seem to
>> say this stuff cures anything that WD 40 won't.. ( I never use WD 40
>> by the way for various reasons.)
>>
>>
> ** IME, good old WD40 cures many contact problems that DeOxit will not
> - particularly when penetration deep into a mechanism is required.
>
> There are many similar products too, like CRC2-26 that have the same
> formulation and so do exactly the same job while costing more.
>
> What the heck do you use ?
>
>
> .... Phil
>
Jeff Liebermann
Jul 12, 2016, 12:04:54 PM7/12/16
to
On Mon, 11 Jul 2016 19:48:43 -0700 (PDT), Phil Allison
<palli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>
>>
>> I also found that I can make things worse
>> by mixing my own and using too much oleic acid. It will not attack
>> gold or silver plated contacts, so those are safe. So, if you're
>> using the old stuff with oleic acid, wash off the contacts with
>> alcohol after you've removed the black silver oxide coating.
>** The dark coating that forms on silver is *silver sulphate* (aka Ag2S).
I stand half way corrected. Y'er right. Most of the tarnish is
<palli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>
>>
>> I also found that I can make things worse
>> by mixing my own and using too much oleic acid. It will not attack
>> gold or silver plated contacts, so those are safe. So, if you're
>> using the old stuff with oleic acid, wash off the contacts with
>> alcohol after you've removed the black silver oxide coating.
>** The dark coating that forms on silver is *silver sulphate* (aka Ag2S).
silver sulphide.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_sulfide>
"This dense black solid constitutes the tarnish that
forms over time on silverware and other silver objects."
Also, silver oxide is also dark colored:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_oxide>
"Tarnish" is a mixture of silver oxide and silver sulphide, in
proportions that vary with whatever is causing the silver to tarnish.
Silver sulphide tarnishes rather quickly in the presence of sulphur
bearing compounds, while silver oxide takes months to accumulate.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_oxide>
"...silver needs hydrogen sulfide to tarnish, although
it may tarnish with oxygen over time."
>Luckily it is quite soft and wears off switch contacts in normal use
>so a build up may occur which can be flushed clean with products
>like WD40.
>
>The idea of using oleic acid on electrical contacts worries as it
>must become conductive under enough voltage.
acid becomes conductive, or perhaps the contact cleaner? Unlikely
because the oleic acid will attack copper and therefore must be washed
off by something after its used to clean the oxides, sulphides, crud,
dirt, tar, and oils off the contacts.
Ralph Mowery
Jul 12, 2016, 12:44:28 PM7/12/16
to
In article <me4aoblk09e4q0h1r...@4ax.com>,
je...@cruzio.com says...
The Deoxit I bought a few days ago must not contain any of the oleic
acid. Not mentioned on the can. This is Deoxit D5. The can says it
protects surfaces so doubt this is a copper eating compound.
The directions say to spray and activate the knobs. Then give it a
short spray and wait 2 minutes before turning the equipment on. I guess
that the wait time is to make sure any thaing that burns has evaporated.
There is no mention of cleaning it off, but really should be left on the
contacts from the way I read it.
je...@cruzio.com says...
acid. Not mentioned on the can. This is Deoxit D5. The can says it
protects surfaces so doubt this is a copper eating compound.
The directions say to spray and activate the knobs. Then give it a
short spray and wait 2 minutes before turning the equipment on. I guess
that the wait time is to make sure any thaing that burns has evaporated.
There is no mention of cleaning it off, but really should be left on the
contacts from the way I read it.
pf...@aol.com
Jul 12, 2016, 1:46:02 PM7/12/16
to
On Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 12:44:28 PM UTC-4, Ralph Mowery wrote:
> The Deoxit I bought a few days ago must not contain any of the oleic
> acid. Not mentioned on the can. This is Deoxit D5. The can says it
> protects surfaces so doubt this is a copper eating compound.
>
When I was working overseas in a country where all products were required to have all contents listed in clear terms, Cramolin Red had a paper label on it that stated: Ingredients: Oleic Acid 5% Petroleum hydrocarbons and propellants 95%. It also cost only about $4 for a 300 ml. spray can. Oleic acid has been around the metals cleaning, clock-making and fine machinery industries for well over 100 years and has been used primarily as a degreaser and oxide remover, primarily for those metals containing copper, tin or zinc. Covers much of what we do here.
> The Deoxit I bought a few days ago must not contain any of the oleic
> acid. Not mentioned on the can. This is Deoxit D5. The can says it
> protects surfaces so doubt this is a copper eating compound.
>
In the US, Caig once had a relationship with Cramolin - selling Cramolin's products packaged for US markets. That relationship failed. And - the story behind the Caig Company, DeOxit, Cramolin and Cramolin Red is fascinating and does not reflect well on Caig.
I will not use Caig's products. Full Stop.
Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA
Jeff Liebermann
Jul 12, 2016, 2:25:33 PM7/12/16
to
On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 10:45:58 -0700 (PDT), "pf...@aol.com"
<pf...@aol.com> wrote:
>In the US, Caig once had a relationship with Cramolin - selling
>Cramolin's products packaged for US markets. That relationship
>failed. And - the story behind the Caig Company, DeOxit,
>Cramolin and Cramolin Red is fascinating and does not reflect
>well on Caig.
>
>I will not use Caig's products. Full Stop.
>
>Peter Wieck
>Melrose Park, PA
Here's part of the story:
<pf...@aol.com> wrote:
>In the US, Caig once had a relationship with Cramolin - selling
>Cramolin's products packaged for US markets. That relationship
>failed. And - the story behind the Caig Company, DeOxit,
>Cramolin and Cramolin Red is fascinating and does not reflect
>well on Caig.
>
>I will not use Caig's products. Full Stop.
>
>Peter Wieck
>Melrose Park, PA
<http://www.pitt.edu/~szekeres/caigcram.htm>
I'm not sure if the story allegedly from Mr Graham, prez of Caig rings
totally true. The "hazardous material" story seems to be a cover for
a financial arrangement that went awry.
I still have a small bottle of Deoxit R-100L. Over about 20 years,
I've only used half the bottle, mostly because I dispensed it by the
drop with a syringe. Q-tips and sprays are wasteful. However, for my
day to day stuff, I mix my own secret formula cleaner. It's secret
because I never mix the stuff accurately or twice the same way. I
also can't recall exactly what I tossed into the stew last. I think
it's mostly naphtha (Coleman lantern fuel), a little oleic acid, and
some automobile engine oil phosphorescent dye so I can see where I
slopped the stuff with a UV light. Or, maybe it was some solvent red
26 dye. Ask me again in about 5 years when I'm scheduled to run out
and need to mix another batch.
Jeff Liebermann
Jul 12, 2016, 2:38:19 PM7/12/16
to
On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 12:44:20 -0400, Ralph Mowery
<rmower...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>The Deoxit I bought a few days ago must not contain any of the oleic
>acid.
It probably doesn't.
<rmower...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>The Deoxit I bought a few days ago must not contain any of the oleic
>acid.
>Not mentioned on the can. This is Deoxit D5. The can says it
>protects surfaces so doubt this is a copper eating compound.
hazardous. Oleic acid is food safe and might not be listed.
If you look on the can somewhere, you might find the product number.
Then look it up here to see what's inside:
<http://store.caig.com/s.nl/sc.18/category.291/.f>
Don't be surprised if it says "proprietary ingredient" or something
similar. The SDS sheet is nearly useless.
Taking a wild guess, I blundered upon:
<http://store.caig.com/core/media/media.nl?id=1902&c=ACCT113328&h=669fee694d58ba7465c0&whence=>
which offers:
PETROLEUM NAPHTHA 75%
DIFLUOROETHANE 20%
DeoxIT® D100L TRADE SECRET 5%
Oh well. That's probably the Deoxit product that Caig was reselling
back in the 1980's.
>The directions say to spray and activate the knobs. Then give it a
>short spray and wait 2 minutes before turning the equipment on. I guess
>that the wait time is to make sure any thaing that burns has evaporated.
>There is no mention of cleaning it off, but really should be left on the
>contacts from the way I read it.
green colored corrosion. You may need a microscope to see it.
Ralph Mowery
Jul 12, 2016, 4:51:25 PM7/12/16
to
In article <chdaobhitefakvmkj...@4ax.com>,
je...@cruzio.com says...
the lable for the can I just bought.
I sprayed some on a piece of copper PC board so will wait overnight and
see if it turns green.
I wish the government would make the companies list everything the put
into the products. Not being able to hold back as far as a trade
secret. I don't care what percent, but do care about what is in it.
je...@cruzio.com says...
>
> On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 12:44:20 -0400, Ralph Mowery
> <rmower...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >The Deoxit I bought a few days ago must not contain any of the oleic
> >acid.
>
>
> On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 12:44:20 -0400, Ralph Mowery
> <rmower...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >The Deoxit I bought a few days ago must not contain any of the oleic
> >acid.
>
>
> Taking a wild guess, I blundered upon:
> <http://store.caig.com/core/media/media.nl?id=1902&c=ACCT113328&h=669fee694d58ba7465c0&whence=>
> which offers:
> PETROLEUM NAPHTHA 75%
> DIFLUOROETHANE 20%
> DeoxIT® D100L TRADE SECRET 5%
> Oh well. That's probably the Deoxit product that Caig was reselling
> back in the 1980's.
>
> >The directions say to spray and activate the knobs. Then give it a
> >short spray and wait 2 minutes before turning the equipment on. I guess
> >that the wait time is to make sure any thaing that burns has evaporated.
> >There is no mention of cleaning it off, but really should be left on the
> >contacts from the way I read it.
>
> Find a piece of copper. Drip on some Deoxit. See if there's any
> green colored corrosion. You may need a microscope to see it.
They do not list the % on the can I have,but that is what is in it on
> <http://store.caig.com/core/media/media.nl?id=1902&c=ACCT113328&h=669fee694d58ba7465c0&whence=>
> which offers:
> PETROLEUM NAPHTHA 75%
> DIFLUOROETHANE 20%
> DeoxIT® D100L TRADE SECRET 5%
> Oh well. That's probably the Deoxit product that Caig was reselling
> back in the 1980's.
>
> >The directions say to spray and activate the knobs. Then give it a
> >short spray and wait 2 minutes before turning the equipment on. I guess
> >that the wait time is to make sure any thaing that burns has evaporated.
> >There is no mention of cleaning it off, but really should be left on the
> >contacts from the way I read it.
>
> Find a piece of copper. Drip on some Deoxit. See if there's any
> green colored corrosion. You may need a microscope to see it.
the lable for the can I just bought.
I sprayed some on a piece of copper PC board so will wait overnight and
see if it turns green.
I wish the government would make the companies list everything the put
into the products. Not being able to hold back as far as a trade
secret. I don't care what percent, but do care about what is in it.
dansabr...@yahoo.com
Jul 12, 2016, 5:43:16 PM7/12/16
to
The MSDS should list all of the chemical ingredients. Check there.
Ralph Mowery
Jul 12, 2016, 6:05:48 PM7/12/16
to
In article <565f57e6-3068-40bc...@googlegroups.com>,
dansabr...@yahoo.com says...
Secret for the CAS No.
That tells nothing about what the C100L is.
http://hosatech.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/MSDS-E-D5S-A_v31.pdf
dansabr...@yahoo.com says...
>
> The MSDS should list all of the chemical ingredients. Check there.
Not exectally. It lists something called Deoxit D-Series D100L Trade
> The MSDS should list all of the chemical ingredients. Check there.
Secret for the CAS No.
That tells nothing about what the C100L is.
http://hosatech.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/MSDS-E-D5S-A_v31.pdf
Dave Platt
Jul 12, 2016, 6:24:35 PM7/12/16
to
In article <MPG.31ef22418...@news.east.earthlink.net>,
over-reach!" for any such attempt. It would be seen as a serious blow
to research and innovation... in effect, you'd be forced to reveal the
result of your (possibly-expensive) research to all of your
competitors, in order to put any chemical product on the market.
From what I read in the documentation, the MSDS rules were tailored to
meet the needs for which they were designed... materials safety. Even
in the case of a trade secret, they require that the manufacturer
spell out the dangers, materials-handling rules, fire-fighting rules,
permissible exposure levels, and so forth. They also require that the
manufacturer disclose the actual chemical composition to medical
authorities in case of medical emergencies (although this can be under
terms of nondisclosure).
Wanting to know just what's in a spray, so you can tell how it may
affect any particular sort of materials? I don't blame you at all for
that, but it's not a safety issue... it's a product usability issue.
OSHA doesn't appear to consider this relevant to the rules for MSDS.
I think the conventional answer would probably be "That's an issue for
you and the product manufacturer to discuss, privately. If you don't
like their answer, don't buy their product."
Ralph Mowery <rmower...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>I wish the government would make the companies list everything the put
>into the products. Not being able to hold back as far as a trade
>secret. I don't care what percent, but do care about what is in it.
There are a whole lot of people who would scream "Government
>I wish the government would make the companies list everything the put
>into the products. Not being able to hold back as far as a trade
>secret. I don't care what percent, but do care about what is in it.
over-reach!" for any such attempt. It would be seen as a serious blow
to research and innovation... in effect, you'd be forced to reveal the
result of your (possibly-expensive) research to all of your
competitors, in order to put any chemical product on the market.
From what I read in the documentation, the MSDS rules were tailored to
meet the needs for which they were designed... materials safety. Even
in the case of a trade secret, they require that the manufacturer
spell out the dangers, materials-handling rules, fire-fighting rules,
permissible exposure levels, and so forth. They also require that the
manufacturer disclose the actual chemical composition to medical
authorities in case of medical emergencies (although this can be under
terms of nondisclosure).
Wanting to know just what's in a spray, so you can tell how it may
affect any particular sort of materials? I don't blame you at all for
that, but it's not a safety issue... it's a product usability issue.
OSHA doesn't appear to consider this relevant to the rules for MSDS.
I think the conventional answer would probably be "That's an issue for
you and the product manufacturer to discuss, privately. If you don't
like their answer, don't buy their product."
whit3rd
Jul 12, 2016, 7:39:25 PM7/12/16
to
On Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 10:46:02 AM UTC-7, pf...@aol.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 12:44:28 PM UTC-4, Ralph Mowery wrote:
>
> > The Deoxit I bought a few days ago must not contain any of the oleic
> > acid. Not mentioned on the can. This is Deoxit D5. The can says it
> > protects surfaces so doubt this is a copper eating compound.
> >
>
> When I was working overseas in a country where all products were required to have all contents listed in clear terms, Cramolin Red had a paper label on it that stated: Ingredients: Oleic Acid 5% Petroleum hydrocarbons and propellants 95%.
The red was a CLEANER, was labeled as a rinse-off-after product. The contact enhancer
> On Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 12:44:28 PM UTC-4, Ralph Mowery wrote:
>
> > The Deoxit I bought a few days ago must not contain any of the oleic
> > acid. Not mentioned on the can. This is Deoxit D5. The can says it
> > protects surfaces so doubt this is a copper eating compound.
> >
>
> When I was working overseas in a country where all products were required to have all contents listed in clear terms, Cramolin Red had a paper label on it that stated: Ingredients: Oleic Acid 5% Petroleum hydrocarbons and propellants 95%.
was the blue, apply-and-forget. The enhancer works well, but the patent has expired, so Caig literature is rather obscure on the ingredient labels. DeOxit Shield S has NATO stock number
NSN 6850-00-450-5821, and hasn't changed since that number was issued... 47 years ago?
Jeff Liebermann
Jul 12, 2016, 8:02:05 PM7/12/16
to
On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 16:39:22 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>The red was a CLEANER, was labeled as a rinse-off-after product. The contact enhancer
>was the blue, apply-and-forget. The enhancer works well, but the patent has expired,
>so Caig literature is rather obscure on the ingredient labels. DeOxit Shield S has
>NATO stock number
>NSN 6850-00-450-5821, and hasn't changed since that number was issued... 47 years ago?
Yep. I took some photos of the labels. Use your own judgment as to
whether it should be rinsed off, or if you like corrosion.
<http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/pics/Cramolin%20R-100L/>
I'll find a tripod to take better photos later today. It's difficult
to get good depth of field on a cylindrical object with a junk camera.
wrote:
>The red was a CLEANER, was labeled as a rinse-off-after product. The contact enhancer
>was the blue, apply-and-forget. The enhancer works well, but the patent has expired,
>so Caig literature is rather obscure on the ingredient labels. DeOxit Shield S has
>NATO stock number
>NSN 6850-00-450-5821, and hasn't changed since that number was issued... 47 years ago?
whether it should be rinsed off, or if you like corrosion.
<http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/pics/Cramolin%20R-100L/>
I'll find a tripod to take better photos later today. It's difficult
to get good depth of field on a cylindrical object with a junk camera.
jurb...@gmail.com
Jul 12, 2016, 8:16:37 PM7/12/16
to
This is one of those things for which there is no easy answer. But I'll bring up something here :
Slick 50.
For those overseas or simply not into cars, Slick 50 was an oil additive for higher mileage cars that improved performance ad extended the life of the engine. It was effective, in fact orders of magnitude more effective than anything that was on the market.
Its effects were measurable, more compression and power. Easier starting. Sometimes people claimed it made it run cooler but I don't personally know of that ad don't really see how unless the oil pressure was so low before it was about to blow anyway.
The secret to Slick 50's success was PTFE resin, which is a for of Teflon actually. When put int the crankcase it coated and impregnated yous bearing surfaces, valve guides, piston rings and of course the gears in the oil pump.
The had a pretty good run with their patent, I don't remember how many years. During that time they had PTFE resin locked up and nobody else could sell it. They charged like fifty bucks a quart for it. And people swore by it, they were happy to pay that because the shit simply is that good.
The patent ran out eventually and others came out with PTFE resin based engine treatments. Some people stuck with the original and even though they did the price went down. They no longer had a lock on the market.
When it comes to Deoxit, people make the mistake of thinking it is removig the oxidation. It is not. The active ingredient actually removes the oxidant (usually oxygen) from the metal. A chemist calls this type of chemical a reducer. They come in many forms, but for this application you need one that is totally non conductive, or at least becomes that way, and that is safe for plastics.
There are pots, sliders specifically, I have noticed on equalizers that you just can't use anything on. Some parts of them are that cheap white almost translucent plastic, I don't know if it is a type of nylon or styrene or what, but ANYTHING makes them sticky. And I mean anything. I tried TF based cleaner (back when you could get it), LPS2, WD40 and who knows what else. I am starting to think the propellant in the can is what attacks the stuff.
O late, I am having a problem with rotary encoders. Clean it and a few days later it is again operating erratically. I looked for them online and they seem to be like $20+, and not even optical. I can tell on the scope, when the pulse drops to zero it really is zero.
But we'll burn that bridge when we come to it. All of the units need a factory modification before they can be shipped or they are all going to fry. I have to burn that bridge first. At what I make now, I'll get around to it when I damn well please.
Trade secrets are bad enough in this field. So what I am getting is that this stuff is so secret that they won't even patent it ? If they patented it you can get the formula.
The REAL problem is when they apply it to foods. Realize that in this country they do not tell you they put a virus in milk that attacks the bacteria that makes it go sour. Extends the shelf life. I know there is zero evidence of this on the net but you can prove it yourself. Just leave some milk out of the fridge and let it go bad. It no longer goes sour, it goes bitter.
And these milk companies in all their good hearts tried to gewt milk reclassified as a soft drink so they could add aspartame WITHOUT LABELING IT. They can already add anything they want but they have to label it. they wanted to sneak that shit into your kids without you knowing it. For what reason ? Best I can figure is to give them a sweet tooth sell more sweetener later.
And then there was a push to make it illegal to label food as "NON-GMO", their case ? That it would hurt the sales of GMO foods. And don't give me this "they are safe" shit, you cannot possibly know that. What's more, since there is more yield per acre this garbage is almost completely devoid of nutrients.
Trade secrets. This is not an easy issue because if you force complete disclosure that removes alot of the incentive. You might be able to enforce intellectual property rights here, but there is nothing stopping someone in China from copying the product and even if they can't sell it here, they can cost you the (rest of the) world market.
Maybe there is no answer and it will be a point of contention until we are extinct.
Slick 50.
For those overseas or simply not into cars, Slick 50 was an oil additive for higher mileage cars that improved performance ad extended the life of the engine. It was effective, in fact orders of magnitude more effective than anything that was on the market.
Its effects were measurable, more compression and power. Easier starting. Sometimes people claimed it made it run cooler but I don't personally know of that ad don't really see how unless the oil pressure was so low before it was about to blow anyway.
The secret to Slick 50's success was PTFE resin, which is a for of Teflon actually. When put int the crankcase it coated and impregnated yous bearing surfaces, valve guides, piston rings and of course the gears in the oil pump.
The had a pretty good run with their patent, I don't remember how many years. During that time they had PTFE resin locked up and nobody else could sell it. They charged like fifty bucks a quart for it. And people swore by it, they were happy to pay that because the shit simply is that good.
The patent ran out eventually and others came out with PTFE resin based engine treatments. Some people stuck with the original and even though they did the price went down. They no longer had a lock on the market.
When it comes to Deoxit, people make the mistake of thinking it is removig the oxidation. It is not. The active ingredient actually removes the oxidant (usually oxygen) from the metal. A chemist calls this type of chemical a reducer. They come in many forms, but for this application you need one that is totally non conductive, or at least becomes that way, and that is safe for plastics.
There are pots, sliders specifically, I have noticed on equalizers that you just can't use anything on. Some parts of them are that cheap white almost translucent plastic, I don't know if it is a type of nylon or styrene or what, but ANYTHING makes them sticky. And I mean anything. I tried TF based cleaner (back when you could get it), LPS2, WD40 and who knows what else. I am starting to think the propellant in the can is what attacks the stuff.
O late, I am having a problem with rotary encoders. Clean it and a few days later it is again operating erratically. I looked for them online and they seem to be like $20+, and not even optical. I can tell on the scope, when the pulse drops to zero it really is zero.
But we'll burn that bridge when we come to it. All of the units need a factory modification before they can be shipped or they are all going to fry. I have to burn that bridge first. At what I make now, I'll get around to it when I damn well please.
Trade secrets are bad enough in this field. So what I am getting is that this stuff is so secret that they won't even patent it ? If they patented it you can get the formula.
The REAL problem is when they apply it to foods. Realize that in this country they do not tell you they put a virus in milk that attacks the bacteria that makes it go sour. Extends the shelf life. I know there is zero evidence of this on the net but you can prove it yourself. Just leave some milk out of the fridge and let it go bad. It no longer goes sour, it goes bitter.
And these milk companies in all their good hearts tried to gewt milk reclassified as a soft drink so they could add aspartame WITHOUT LABELING IT. They can already add anything they want but they have to label it. they wanted to sneak that shit into your kids without you knowing it. For what reason ? Best I can figure is to give them a sweet tooth sell more sweetener later.
And then there was a push to make it illegal to label food as "NON-GMO", their case ? That it would hurt the sales of GMO foods. And don't give me this "they are safe" shit, you cannot possibly know that. What's more, since there is more yield per acre this garbage is almost completely devoid of nutrients.
Trade secrets. This is not an easy issue because if you force complete disclosure that removes alot of the incentive. You might be able to enforce intellectual property rights here, but there is nothing stopping someone in China from copying the product and even if they can't sell it here, they can cost you the (rest of the) world market.
Maybe there is no answer and it will be a point of contention until we are extinct.
Phil Allison
Jul 13, 2016, 2:07:56 AM7/13/16
to
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>
> >** The dark coating that forms on silver is *silver sulphate* (aka Ag2S).
>
> I stand half way corrected. Y'er right. Most of the tarnish is
> silver sulphide.
** There is simply no silver oxide formed at room temp.
>
> >** The dark coating that forms on silver is *silver sulphate* (aka Ag2S).
>
> I stand half way corrected. Y'er right. Most of the tarnish is
> silver sulphide.
>>
> >The idea of using oleic acid on electrical contacts worries as it
> >must become conductive under enough voltage.
>
>
> What do you mean "must become conductive"? Do you mean that the oleic
> acid becomes conductive, or perhaps the contact cleaner?
Even the smallest leakage current can be a disaster with electronics - track to track on PBCs or between plate and grid pins of a vacuum tube or its socket.
Products like WD40 are certain to cause no leakage.
.... Phil
jurb...@gmail.com
Jul 13, 2016, 5:10:09 AM7/13/16
to
>"** There is simply no silver oxide formed at room temp. "
Unless you got some qualifiers for that statement, it is not true. If true, what is that shit on my silver candy bowl ?
>"Even the smallest leakage current can be a disaster with >electronics - track to track on PBCs or between plate and grid pins >of a vacuum tube or its socket. "
>"Products like WD40 are certain to cause no leakage. "
And cleaning high voltage pots is clearly contraindicated. Like the focus and screen controls on a TV, or similar ones going to the CRT in a CRO. However they very rarely need it.
And what most people do not realize is that in a pot, usually you are not cleaning the carbon element, you are cleaning the contact for the wiper.
Talking about stuff becoming conductive, in my bigscreen TV days there used to be coolant leaks. It would leak but it was not conductive - YET. After electrical potential is applied for a time the shit became not only conductive but corrosive. Many nightmares over that. Soaks into the board and screws that all up, eats the copper and the pins off of components. And nobody knows until the failure happens. And if it leaks onto SMPS, HV or line output section it can cause a fire, so manufacturers started installing gutters.
And let's not go too much into when lytics leak all over the board. I have had to run some through many cycles to get them clean.
And it doesn't take high voltage to make a problem. Last year I worked on a fairly expensive Roland drum machine. the output OP AMP was misbiased at the input and I could not figure out why. Well later I find the board with the output level control had been doused by some sort of contact cleaner, there was residue all over it. I cleaned that fucker many many times and it didn't work. I had to modify the thing to tolerate the leakage ! Actually a 47K resistor to ground did the trick.
Whenever I go to a shop and they give me a can of cleaner I spray it on a paper towel. I want to see it COMPLETELY dry. Pure TF, though not the best cleaner, you could be sure there is nothing left of it and fast. But that is pretty much a form of Freon and you can't get it in the US anymore, except maybe in the military or under some special license. I got some Freon 12, maybe ten pounds of it and if I sell it that's like $100 a pound and I want to first see the car it goes into hold a nitrogen charge for a week at least.
Phil Allison
Jul 13, 2016, 6:03:36 AM7/13/16
to
jurb...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >"** There is simply no silver oxide formed at room temp. "
>
> Unless you got some qualifiers for that statement, it is not true
>
** Use Google and find out.
>
> >"** There is simply no silver oxide formed at room temp. "
>
> Unless you got some qualifiers for that statement, it is not true
>
> If true, what is that shit on my silver candy bowl ?
>
> I would still not use anything that is not residue free on a tube socket.
>
> >"Products like WD40 are certain to cause no leakage. "
>
> Unless it is sealed it is still a good idea to wash it down.
> There can be conductive stuff in the dust in the air and it
> can stick to the oil residue. So maybe the oil is not conductive
> but the resulting goop is. It really does depend on what you're cleaning.
>
>
Just like all the other half wit, WD40 paranoids
.... Phil
Chris Jones
Jul 13, 2016, 7:27:17 AM7/13/16
to
On 12/07/2016 05:19, Ralph Mowery wrote:
>
>
> I have not used it but just bought a spray can of Deoxit. From reading
> about it, it seems to be the greatest stuff for cleaning contacts.
>
> I have an old Tectronix Scope 465B that one chanel has a flakey input
> switch. The manual says only to use isopropal alcohol to clean it
> with, I did that with some 99% and it helped some, but thinking of
> using some of the Deoxit on the switch. Would that be ok or not.
>
> I would hate to mess up the switches as they would be almost impossiable
> to find replacements for .
>
The little fork-shaped things that touch the PCB are exposed to dust in
those scopes. If you put any kind of lubricant, that will probably
collect more dust and increase your problems. I think that is why Tek
recommends a cleaner that leaves no residue that the dust could get
stuck to. Why not try what Tek recommended, especially if it is still
available (non-CFC).
Often on the 475 (I guess similar) the input attenuator things would
have bad contact with the sockets that they are in. Just unplugging them
and re-plugging them (one at a time so as not to mix them up) usually
cures that, though I am willing to believe that some contact cleaner
wiped just on the attenuator pins (not sprayed everywhere) might help
since dust shouldn't get in there.
Chris
>
>
> I have not used it but just bought a spray can of Deoxit. From reading
> about it, it seems to be the greatest stuff for cleaning contacts.
>
> I have an old Tectronix Scope 465B that one chanel has a flakey input
> switch. The manual says only to use isopropal alcohol to clean it
> with, I did that with some 99% and it helped some, but thinking of
> using some of the Deoxit on the switch. Would that be ok or not.
>
> I would hate to mess up the switches as they would be almost impossiable
> to find replacements for .
>
The little fork-shaped things that touch the PCB are exposed to dust in
those scopes. If you put any kind of lubricant, that will probably
collect more dust and increase your problems. I think that is why Tek
recommends a cleaner that leaves no residue that the dust could get
stuck to. Why not try what Tek recommended, especially if it is still
available (non-CFC).
Often on the 475 (I guess similar) the input attenuator things would
have bad contact with the sockets that they are in. Just unplugging them
and re-plugging them (one at a time so as not to mix them up) usually
cures that, though I am willing to believe that some contact cleaner
wiped just on the attenuator pins (not sprayed everywhere) might help
since dust shouldn't get in there.
Chris
pf...@aol.com
Jul 13, 2016, 8:25:06 AM7/13/16
to
On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 2:07:56 AM UTC-4, Phil Allison wrote:
>
> Products like WD40 are certain to cause no leakage.
Funny thing about WD40 (W-ater D-isplacement, 40th try). Unlike most of the similar formulations discussed here, it is truly 100% volatile, but the time it takes to volatilize varies based on temperature and environment (humidity and so forth) can be from a few minutes to several days. But, the very light mineral oil (stoddard solvent/ultra-refined kerosene) in with the propellants does evaporate before it decays (oxidizes). And it is the decay products that can turn into a sticky mess, attract dust and otherwise cause havoc.
>
> Products like WD40 are certain to cause no leakage.
Most of the "badness" attributed to WD40 is from residual scum that is softened by the WD40, distributed throughout the system, and then rehardens into that sticky mess when the WD goes away. Wasn't that way before, therefore it is *because of* and *due to* the WD... This is the fallacy of post hoc, ergo propter hoc, and the brute reality is that _Not Enough_ WD was used to remove the scum entirely. Spray it on. Let it sit for 5 -10 minutes, rinse and repeat. Might be twice, might be three times, but eventually the part will be clean. No threat to plastics, no threat to metals, won't attack graphite binders...
Guys and gals, the stuff may be purchased in anything from small pocket spray cans to 55 gallon drums. Use a rechargeable spray can and one has an excellent solvent for pennies the ounce. When I get into that level of use, I put an inch of kitty litter in the bottom of a trash can, and spray away. Nothing goes into the ground, there is no sticky mess, and the litter is dry by the next day anyway.
On silver - back in the day when coal was burnt for everything from heat to steel making to transportation to making Carbon Monoxide (town gas) for lighting, there was a LOT of sulphur in the air. And the servants were ALWAYS polishing the "plate" as it would turn dark very nearly overnight. Things are cleaner now, and it takes several days to nearly never. But silver oxides do not form at room temperature naturally. Full stop. I keep a pre-amp that uses silver contacts and wipers on several of the pots and switches inside. They are nearly as bright as when new, not much gets inside the 'box' to cause problems. Funny thing - it was a "cheap" preamp back in the day.
Dave Platt
Jul 13, 2016, 2:24:29 PM7/13/16
to
In article <93e94a98-82b6-480f...@googlegroups.com>,
"zero evidence of this on the net" isn't really to be taken seriously,
I think.
Have you not heard of "pasteurization"? It is standard procedure in
the U.S. to require that commercially-sold milk products be
pasteurized, and has been for roughly a century.
Standard milk pasteurization temperatures kill almost all pathogenic
bacteria in the milk, and also kill most of the bacteria which cause
milk to sour naturally. These temperatures are *not* high enough to
kill all of the bacteria in raw milk... and some relatively
slow-growing heat-tolerant bacteria will survive and will cause the
milk to go bad after a few days.
It's possible to buy ("ultra-heat-treated") milk, which has been
heated briefly to well above boiling temperature for a few seconds.
It can be stored at room temperature for months.
The details of this process haven't changed very much in decades. I
learned about this in microbiology class, in high school, back in the
late 1960s. My teacher made the distinction between "goes sour" and
"goes bad" way back then. It's nothing new.
Pasteurization is a more thorough process than your proposed "virus
attacks the bacteria" treatment would be. Heat treatment kills or
stunts most species of bacteria and archaea in the milk. Viruses
would very probably attack only a limited range of the
bacteria... even if they killed the "souring" bacteria such as
Lactobacillus, they would leave other species untouched (e.g. E. coli)
and the milk would still require pasteurization to be sold legally and
safely.
<jurb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>The REAL problem is when they apply it to foods. Realize that in this
>country they do not tell you they put a virus in milk that attacks the
>bacteria that makes it go sour. Extends the shelf life. I know there is
>zero evidence of this on the net but you can prove it yourself. Just
>leave some milk out of the fridge and let it go bad. It no longer goes
>sour, it goes bitter.
That's scarcely proof... and a claim that's made on the basis of
>The REAL problem is when they apply it to foods. Realize that in this
>country they do not tell you they put a virus in milk that attacks the
>bacteria that makes it go sour. Extends the shelf life. I know there is
>zero evidence of this on the net but you can prove it yourself. Just
>leave some milk out of the fridge and let it go bad. It no longer goes
>sour, it goes bitter.
"zero evidence of this on the net" isn't really to be taken seriously,
I think.
Have you not heard of "pasteurization"? It is standard procedure in
the U.S. to require that commercially-sold milk products be
pasteurized, and has been for roughly a century.
Standard milk pasteurization temperatures kill almost all pathogenic
bacteria in the milk, and also kill most of the bacteria which cause
milk to sour naturally. These temperatures are *not* high enough to
kill all of the bacteria in raw milk... and some relatively
slow-growing heat-tolerant bacteria will survive and will cause the
milk to go bad after a few days.
It's possible to buy ("ultra-heat-treated") milk, which has been
heated briefly to well above boiling temperature for a few seconds.
It can be stored at room temperature for months.
The details of this process haven't changed very much in decades. I
learned about this in microbiology class, in high school, back in the
late 1960s. My teacher made the distinction between "goes sour" and
"goes bad" way back then. It's nothing new.
Pasteurization is a more thorough process than your proposed "virus
attacks the bacteria" treatment would be. Heat treatment kills or
stunts most species of bacteria and archaea in the milk. Viruses
would very probably attack only a limited range of the
bacteria... even if they killed the "souring" bacteria such as
Lactobacillus, they would leave other species untouched (e.g. E. coli)
and the milk would still require pasteurization to be sold legally and
safely.
jurb...@gmail.com
Jul 13, 2016, 4:14:34 PM7/13/16
to
>"That's scarcely proof... and a claim that's made on the basis of
>"zero evidence of this on the net" isn't really to be taken >seriously,
>I think. "
Don't believe it then, but I don't make shit up. There WAS evidence of it which has all been removed. How do you think I found out ?
>"zero evidence of this on the net" isn't really to be taken >seriously,
>I think. "
I did NOT imagine this.
pf...@aol.com
Jul 13, 2016, 4:44:49 PM7/13/16
to
On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 4:14:34 PM UTC-4, jurb...@gmail.com wrote:
> Don't believe it then, but I don't make shit up. There WAS evidence of it which has all been removed. How do you think I found out ?
>
> I did NOT imagine this.
No, you did not. However, it is quite common knowledge and you have seriously misplaced the application.
> Don't believe it then, but I don't make shit up. There WAS evidence of it which has all been removed. How do you think I found out ?
>
> I did NOT imagine this.
My wife makes yogurt from whole milk and active cultures she saves from the previous batch. She makes it Asian style (thin as light cream) and Euro style - thick as pudding. It is a matter of the culture, cure time and base used. Were there the "virus" as you suggest in the milk, this simply would not happen.
http://www.listex.eu/product/
I think you conflated this product with paranoid imaginings, perhaps some mind-altering substances and a few other imagined conspiracies.
Here is the basic failure point of _ALL_ serious conspiracies from the faked moon landing to the Masons and Knights Templar ruling the earth. In order for any such thing to be true, uncounted thousands must be "in" on the secret. Human nature being what it is, at least a hundred or so of these uncounted thousands are going to let the secret escape, and with real, credible proof. It may be impossible to prove the negative, but it is laughingly easy to prove what actually exists.
As to "removing" all the proof from the net - that would be yet another impossible conspiracy.
Or, in the immortal words of Stephen Stills:
There's something happening here
But what it is ain't exactly clear
There's a man with a gun over there
Telling me I got to beware
I think it's time we stop
Children, what's that sound?
Everybody look - what's going down?
There's battle lines being drawn
Nobody's right if everybody's wrong
Young people speaking' their minds
Getting so much resistance from behind
It's time we stop
Hey, what's that sound?
Everybody look - what's going down?
What a field day for the heat
A thousand people in the street
Singing songs and carrying signs
Mostly saying, "hooray for our side"
It's time we stop
Hey, what's that sound?
Everybody look - what's going down?
Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you're always afraid
Step out of line, the men come and take you away
We better stop
Hey, what's that sound?
Everybody look - what's going down?
We better stop
Hey, what's that sound?
Everybody look - what's going down?
We better stop
Now, what's that sound?
Everybody look - what's going down?
We better stop
Children, what's that sound?
Everybody look - what's going down?
Jeff Liebermann
Jul 13, 2016, 6:52:50 PM7/13/16
to
On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 23:07:52 -0700 (PDT), Phil Allison
<palli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> >** The dark coating that forms on silver is *silver sulphate* (aka Ag2S).
>>
>> I stand half way corrected. Y'er right. Most of the tarnish is
>> silver sulphide.
>** There is simply no silver oxide formed at room temp.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarnish>
<palli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> >** The dark coating that forms on silver is *silver sulphate* (aka Ag2S).
>>
>> I stand half way corrected. Y'er right. Most of the tarnish is
>> silver sulphide.
>** There is simply no silver oxide formed at room temp.
Tarnish is a thin layer of corrosion that forms over copper,
brass, silver, aluminum, magnesium and other similar metals
as their outermost layer undergoes a chemical reaction.
Tarnish does not always result from the sole effects of
oxygen in the air. For example, silver needs hydrogen sulfide
to tarnish, although it may tarnish with oxygen over time.
I'm not sure how much time is required, but my guess is that it's in
months.
>> >The idea of using oleic acid on electrical contacts worries as it
>> >must become conductive under enough voltage.
>>
>> What do you mean "must become conductive"? Do you mean that the oleic
>> acid becomes conductive, or perhaps the contact cleaner?
>** I was referring to products that use oleic or any other acid in the mix.
>Even the smallest leakage current can be a disaster with electronics -
>track to track on PBCs or between plate and grid pins of a vacuum tube
>or its socket.
conductivity of oleic acid.
<https://www.ebi.ac.uk/chembldb/index.php/compound/inspect/ChEMBL8659>
<https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/445639>
If I feel ambitious, I'll try some on a glass slide with my antique
hand crank Megger meter. Something like this:
<http://www.richardsradios.co.uk/megger.html>
Last time I used it, I managed to zap myself, so I'm not thrilled with
doing this. Still, it's handy for measuring leakage resistance and
torturing customers to pay my exorbitant fees.
>Products like WD40 are certain to cause no leakage.
it and see what it really does. It's much better to test than to
speculate. However, my opinions and experiences with WD40 are
somewhat different than yours. I'll use it for all kinds of
mechanical devices, but I keep it away from electronics for the same
reason you seem to dislike oleic acid. Both tend to migrate to where
they don't belong.
Drivel: No matter what the topic of the discussion, if it is about
chemicals for electronics, the discussion will inevitably gravitate
down to WD40.
Jeff Liebermann
Jul 13, 2016, 6:56:56 PM7/13/16
to
On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 03:03:31 -0700 (PDT), Phil Allison
<palli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> If true, what is that shit on my silver candy bowl ?
A layer of sugar eating bugs perhaps?
<palli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> If true, what is that shit on my silver candy bowl ?
> ** As already explained, it's "Silver Sulphate" or Ag2S !!!
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_sulfide>
> Just like all the other half wit, WD40 paranoids
(Andrew Grove)
"Trust no one".
<https://www.google.com/search?q=trust+no+one&tbm=isch>
John Robertson
Jul 13, 2016, 7:28:10 PM7/13/16
to
On 07/13/2016 3:52 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 23:07:52 -0700 (PDT), Phil Allison
> <palli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>>> ** The dark coating that forms on silver is *silver sulphate* (aka Ag2S).
>>>
>>> I stand half way corrected. Y'er right. Most of the tarnish is
>>> silver sulphide.
>
...
> On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 23:07:52 -0700 (PDT), Phil Allison
> <palli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>>> ** The dark coating that forms on silver is *silver sulphate* (aka Ag2S).
>>>
>>> I stand half way corrected. Y'er right. Most of the tarnish is
>>> silver sulphide.
>
>
> Drivel: No matter what the topic of the discussion, if it is about
> chemicals for electronics, the discussion will inevitably gravitate
> down to WD40.
>
I think we will call this Jeff's Law.
> Drivel: No matter what the topic of the discussion, if it is about
> chemicals for electronics, the discussion will inevitably gravitate
> down to WD40.
>
John ;-#)#
--
(Please post followups or tech inquiries to the USENET newsgroup)
John's Jukes Ltd. 2343 Main St., Vancouver, BC, Canada V5T 3C9
(604)872-5757 or Fax 872-2010 (Pinballs, Jukes, Video Games)
www.flippers.com
"Old pinballers never die, they just flip out."
Jeff Liebermann
Jul 13, 2016, 8:19:09 PM7/13/16
to
On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 16:28:02 -0700, John Robertson <sp...@flippers.com>
wrote:
>On 07/13/2016 3:52 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> Drivel: No matter what the topic of the discussion, if it is about
>> chemicals for electronics, the discussion will inevitably gravitate
>> down to WD40.
>I think we will call this Jeff's Law.
>John ;-#)#
Sorry but that name is already taken, at least in Florida:
<http://cyberbullying.org/jeffs-law>
Also, such an association might tarnish my reputation. Think of
something else or something better.
wrote:
>On 07/13/2016 3:52 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> Drivel: No matter what the topic of the discussion, if it is about
>> chemicals for electronics, the discussion will inevitably gravitate
>> down to WD40.
>I think we will call this Jeff's Law.
>John ;-#)#
<http://cyberbullying.org/jeffs-law>
Also, such an association might tarnish my reputation. Think of
something else or something better.
Phil Allison
Jul 14, 2016, 12:57:36 AM7/14/16
to
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>
>
> >** There is simply no silver oxide formed at room temp.
>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarnish>
> Tarnish is a thin layer of corrosion that forms over copper,
> brass, silver, aluminum, magnesium and other similar metals
> as their outermost layer undergoes a chemical reaction.
> Tarnish does not always result from the sole effects of
> oxygen in the air. For example, silver needs hydrogen sulfide
> to tarnish, although it may tarnish with oxygen over time.
>
>
** The Wiki does not actually say that *silver oxide* is formed on bare silver, in air at room temp.
>
>
> >** There is simply no silver oxide formed at room temp.
>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarnish>
> Tarnish is a thin layer of corrosion that forms over copper,
> brass, silver, aluminum, magnesium and other similar metals
> as their outermost layer undergoes a chemical reaction.
> Tarnish does not always result from the sole effects of
> oxygen in the air. For example, silver needs hydrogen sulfide
> to tarnish, although it may tarnish with oxygen over time.
>
>
Other Google references say that in rare cases, silver chloride can form but make no mention of silver oxide.
.... Phil
gregz
Jul 16, 2016, 2:45:52 AM7/16/16
to
Greg
gregz
Jul 16, 2016, 2:54:23 AM7/16/16
to
Phil Allison <palli...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Nutcase Kook " wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Doesn't WD40 attack certain plastic,
>>
>>
>
> ** More paranoid drivel from the resident looney.
>
> Yawwnnnnnnnnnnnn......
>
>
> FYI:
>
> None of the plastics used for switches, pots or connectors in electronics
> is affected by using WD40 - even when soaked in the liquid.
>
> In any case, the volatile part evaporates in a short time leaving behind
> only a thin mineral oil residue.
>
>
>
> .... Phil
I never had a problem with WD40 except it pretty much dries off. Never saw
it get sticky.
Greg
> "Nutcase Kook " wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Doesn't WD40 attack certain plastic,
>>
>>
>
> ** More paranoid drivel from the resident looney.
>
> Yawwnnnnnnnnnnnn......
>
>
> FYI:
>
> None of the plastics used for switches, pots or connectors in electronics
> is affected by using WD40 - even when soaked in the liquid.
>
> In any case, the volatile part evaporates in a short time leaving behind
> only a thin mineral oil residue.
>
>
>
> .... Phil
I never had a problem with WD40 except it pretty much dries off. Never saw
it get sticky.
Greg
Phil Allison
Jul 16, 2016, 6:02:24 AM7/16/16
to
GS wrote:
>
>
> I never had a problem with WD40 except it pretty much dries off. Never saw
> it get sticky.
>
>
** The oily residue can cause malfunctions in electronics - but only someone totally clueless would spray it all over the drive belts in a VCR or cassette player OR like one case I saw the tuning gang in a Quad FM3 tuner.
>
>
> I never had a problem with WD40 except it pretty much dries off. Never saw
> it get sticky.
>
>
It took an enormous amount of cleaning to get ALL the oil off and restore the RF and oscillator stages to normal operation after the FM stations had moved nearly 20MHz down and right off the dial.
Hint: mineral oil had a dielectric constant of about 2, relative to air.
..... Phil
jurb...@gmail.com
Jul 16, 2016, 10:08:21 AM7/16/16
to
>"like one case I saw the tuning gang in a Quad FM3 tuner. "
These days I apply it with a syringe right to the contacts. If the blades are really dusty I use stuff that is completely residue free, and I DO test it.
Phil Allison
Jul 17, 2016, 12:23:13 AM7/17/16
to
A few drops of WD40 or similar works like magic and restores normal operation to AM and FM bands.
BTW:
Audio Generators often use a tuning gangs, not just old tube models but also modern examples with FET input sustaining amplifier circuits. The dual gangs used are the same as found in tube AM radios and give the advantages of infinite resolution and indefinite life compared to using a dual pot.
The circuit used is a Wien Bridge and to get down to 20Hz means using 20Mohm resistors in the network ( f = 1/2piRC ). The whole gang has to be isolated from ground since the two sections are connected in series.
.... Phil
jurb...@gmail.com
Jul 17, 2016, 3:58:26 PM7/17/16
to
>"** By "contacts" you mean the bronze bearings and fingers that >ground the moving plates ? "
Exactly. If the plates are clean that is all it needs and usually the alignment stays put enough that you only have to hit the trimmer caps a little bit to tweak it.
And realizing that when you clean a pot you are cleaning the contact to the wiper which is in the center, not the carbon element, I have successfully use LPS2 from the front. It gets through and takes care of it.
It is surprising how long it took for these tuning caps to become in need of cleaning. Back in the 1970s it was unheard of. Even now, alot of people who still have analog tuners just leave them on one station so they never move. Pots also, move them around all the time and they clean themselves.
Of course eventually there will be no such things, just buttons. Oh and rotary encoders. I have a bad problem with those but I am not going to ask you because you are in bumfukt Egypt or whatever. I need to source them here and not for twenty bucks apiece. They are not optical either. And I am serious unsure of how any I will need. I got 53 units and figure by cannibalisation probably get 35 or so of them up and saleable. These things, when the rotary encoder starts going the SOB will go down when you turn it up, up when you turn it down. That can be annoying and I don't want to see these things coming back with bullet holes in them.
Jeff Liebermann
Jul 19, 2016, 7:16:59 PM7/19/16
to
On Sat, 16 Jul 2016 06:45:49 -0000 (UTC), gregz <ze...@comcast.net>
wrote:
>The r100 had a neat smell. Whatever I had left lost most of the smell.
>Greg
Mine still reeks. Smells much like some form of naphtha. The
difference is that I know that the metal caps leak (from experience
with rubber cement and bicycle tire patch kits). My fix is to use
teflon pipe tape on the bottle, which offers a much better seal.
wrote:
>The r100 had a neat smell. Whatever I had left lost most of the smell.
>Greg
difference is that I know that the metal caps leak (from experience
with rubber cement and bicycle tire patch kits). My fix is to use
teflon pipe tape on the bottle, which offers a much better seal.
0 new messages