sci.electronics.repair@googlegroups.com

Google Groups

amdx <nojunk@knology.net>: Nov 19 10:51AM -0600 On 11/18/2016 10:35 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote: > awful. Goop-Off, Un-Du, Turtle Wax T-529, Goo-Gone, etc.   > Then, there are the home concoctions: > <https://www.pinterest.com/explore/remove-sticky-labels/>   I remove the labels on some 3.5 gallon food grade buckets by cutting paper towel the size of the label, lay it over the label and then put just enough Xylene on the paper towel to wet it. I wait 5 minutes and the label will peel off whole with no problem. Sometimes I need to use the paper towel to remove residual glue. Before I found that, I could spend a hour scraping off the label. now I can get 20 done in less than an hour. Mikek

clare@snyder.on.ca: Nov 19 11:56AM -0500 On Sat, 19 Nov 2016 14:38:22 +0000, Stormin' Norman   >Use of and storage of gasoline and other highly carcinogenic chemicals mixtures inside the living area of a >residence is as inadvisable as smoking or leaving a loaded, unlocked firearm where might be accessible by a 5 >year old child. It will also REALLY piss off your insurance company - even if stored in a sealed "listed" container.

clare@snyder.on.ca: Nov 19 11:57AM -0500 On Sat, 19 Nov 2016 09:39:11 -0500, bitrex >store acetone into a Styrofoam cup, and instantly ended up with a big >gloppy mess of acetone and melted Styrofoam on my lap.   >Then I felt dumb. Gasoline does the same thing. Might take twice as long but you still measure it in seconds and fractions there-of.

Oren <Oren@127.0.0.1>: Nov 19 10:57AM -0800 On Sat, 19 Nov 2016 02:02:46 -0000 (UTC), Robert Bannon   >> Did you try peanut butter on the labels?   >Butane might cut gasoline, as you suggested. >Naptha is almost certain verboten in California.   For removing labels I was suggesting lighter fluid (NAPHTHA) to remove labels. Not suggesting mixing it with gas. I removes labels, tar, grease & oil stains. <https://tinyurl.com/hpzopew>     I wasn't joking about peanut butter (smooth variety) either. It takes longer so the oil soaks in and loosens the label. YMMV

Robert Bannon <rbannon@yahoo.spam.nowhere.invalid>: Nov 19 07:08PM On Sat, 19 Nov 2016 10:51:07 -0600, amdx wrote:   > Before I found that, I could spend a hour scraping off the label. now > I can get 20 done in less than an hour. > Mikek   As Jeff said, we can't get Xylene in California.

Robert Bannon <rbannon@yahoo.spam.nowhere.invalid>: Nov 19 07:08PM On Sat, 19 Nov 2016 01:33:48 -0500, Mike Duffy wrote:     > PS: Make sure you are outside if you want to try this. It would also be a > good idea to put on safety goggles as well. And be patient. When the smoke > starts, don't attempt to speed things up by adding more of anything.   Here, in California, we are so inundated with such silly nanny warnings that we become inured to them.   It's a big business just selling the signs, for heaven's sake! https://www.google.com/search?q=california+warning+stickers

Robert Bannon <rbannon@yahoo.spam.nowhere.invalid>: Nov 19 07:08PM On Fri, 18 Nov 2016 20:35:03 -0800, Jeff Liebermann wrote:   > Well, you could try using something that was actually formulated for > removing labels: > Ouch. Rather expensive at $25/quart.   Exactly. 1. Water, which is 1 cent a gallon, works fine to remove most paper labels off of most grocery store jars (which is my application).   2. Gasoline, at $3 a gallon, works fine on most of the remaining underlying goops. I use the gasoline outside, and I wash the jar of the gasoline, but the stink still transfers into the house unless I air it outside for a day.   3. When the underlying goop is resistant to gasoline, usually acetone or MAF cleaner does the trick.   That's my cheap, readily available 2-step (sometimes 3-step) process for removing labels from food jars for further use of the jar.   > Ethylbenzene 100-41-4 7 - 13 Trade Secret * > Toluene 108-88-3 0.5 - 1.5 Trade Secret * > Benzene 71-43-2 < 0.1 Trade Secret *   Like you, I love the MSDS because they give you the list of noxious things in the can (they don't need to list non-noxious stuff though).   This one looks suspiciously similar to gasoline, by the way, in that gasoline contains the same stuff (almost certainly in different percentages though).   > For naphtha, use Coleman camp fuel. Xylene and toluene are no longer > available in California, so those won't work.   I definately tried Coleman Camp Fuel in the past, since I had about 4 cans of the stuff. It didn't work anywhere nearly as well as gasoline did, and it stunk too. It's almost certainly less flammable though.   I also tried charcoal lighter fluid, which was just as bad at removing the goop as was the Coleman fuel.   So, whatever they put in those cans, is no good for the task of removing the underlying goop under labels (once the label is removed by soaking in water). > There are made for purpose label removers, all of which really smell > awful. Goop-Off, Un-Du, Turtle Wax T-529, Goo-Gone, etc.   Yup. The label removers are no better than gasoline, as far as I know, when it comes to removing the underlying adhesive under most food-jar labels.   They're only better than gasoline in that they're not flammable, which is why I use the gasoline outside currently.   > Then, there are the home concoctions: > <https://www.pinterest.com/explore/remove-sticky-labels/>   Not one of those seems to use gasoline, even though it's clearly and obviously a fantastic solvent (which I've used for years and which works fine for removing the goop).   The main problem with gasoline is that it needs to be used outside.

Robert Bannon <rbannon@yahoo.spam.nowhere.invalid>: Nov 19 07:08PM > d-limonene,   Fran, the retired chemist, will have to let us know *how* that d-limonene works for removing the goop.   Remember, removing most labels is so easy to do with just plain old soaking in water, that the problem isn't removing the label.   The problem is removing the underlying goop.

Robert Bannon <rbannon@yahoo.spam.nowhere.invalid>: Nov 19 07:08PM > But "real men" are not "totally" stupid.   Agreed. We wear goggles (sometimes) when cutting wood.   But, do you read the warning on California hammers? They suggest you wear goggles every time you hammer a nail.   Nothing wrong with goggles. I have a half dozen myself. But every time you hammer a nail?   > They mitigate danger where > it makes sense - and in your case it does.   I wear a helmet, boots, and gloves when I ride a motorcycle. You don't need to tell me that riding a motorcycle is dangerous.   Tell me something I don't know. Otherwise you're wasting everyone's time.   That was my only point in preventing people telling me that the otherwise excellent solvent has deleterious properties (that everyone already knows).   > I hope you haven't fathered > any kids yet - the world doesn't need any more Bannons with yout > cheap-assed attitude.   Grandkids. All Roman Catholic. You're doomed. :)   > Buy a commercial goo remover that is safe > (relatively) to use - and use it outside in fresh air - because they > ALL STINK.   1. Water works fine to remove most paper labels. Water is much cheaper than anything else you can suggest for removing the label.   2. Gasoline works fine to remove most goop under the labels. The only problem with gasoline is that it (a) stinks and (b) is flammable. Outside is no problem, which is how I do it currently.   But the goal is to dilute the gasoline 10:1 so that it can be stored and used inside. The scientific trick is to find a good diluent that negates the deleterious properties of the gasoline.   If that's too difficult a scientific problem for you, I understand. Engineering a solution isn't always as simple as buying something off the shelf.

Robert Bannon <rbannon@yahoo.spam.nowhere.invalid>: Nov 19 07:08PM > Gasoline does the same thing. Might take twice as long but you still > measure it in seconds and fractions there-of.   Yup. Every kid has melted a huge box of stryofoam peanuts into a cup of gasoline to make what the kids call 'napalm' (at least we did in the Vietnam war days when we were young kids).

Robert Bannon <rbannon@yahoo.spam.nowhere.invalid>: Nov 19 07:08PM > Naptha won't help the flammabilty/explosive danger.   Thanks for looking at the problem from a scientific standpoint.   The main issue is that gasoline is a *fantastic* readily available and cheap (relatively) solvent for eliminating the goop under the labels (after the label is removed by soaking in water); but gasoline (a) stinks, and (b) is flammable.   So all we're trying to do is reduce those two deleterious qualities: a. Lower the stink (or mask it with a better stink perhaps) b. Lower the flammability issue (probably by lowering the quantity)   Looking at naphtha as the diluent and gasoline as the solvent, and assuming something around a 1:10 ratio of diluent to solvent, the first thing I find is that naphtha is, like gasoline, not a single chemical in and of itself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum_naphtha   Looking up whether naphtha is a good diluent for gasoline, people do it: http://www.greencarcongress.com/2013/10/20131008-naphtha.html   But the results were too complex for me to glean the gist of the results in a single skim, so I'll move on to the next suggestion for the moment.   > Butane is even worse. I don't see butane readily available either. It might be (e.g., lighter refills), but it seems too flammable for me to consider as the diluent.   > Methanol is corrosive, VERY flammable and poisonous (absorbs > through the skin too)   The problem, I think, with *any* alcohol, is that they're gonna dilute it with water, and water isn't what we want to mix with the gasoline, so, unless we can find reagent grade alcohols, I think alcohol that we do find will have water in it. > Dichloromethane may be an alternative but it has serious health risks > as well   Is that a common household chemical?

Robert Bannon <rbannon@yahoo.spam.nowhere.invalid>: Nov 19 07:08PM On Fri, 18 Nov 2016 23:16:28 -0500, JC wrote:   > Well, I'm just really glad I don't live in Califailia. I do like my > solvents.   I am hoping that the solvent that we scientifically come up with is not only readily available, but that it *lowers* the negative qualities of gasoline.

Robert Bannon <rbannon@yahoo.spam.nowhere.invalid>: Nov 19 07:08PM On Sat, 19 Nov 2016 14:51:39 +0000, Andy Burns wrote:   > quite nice.   > <https://youtu.be/b4Cu1tYpc64>   > No, he doesn't compare petrol to the others :-P   Thanks for that video.   The video underscores the fact that no one solvent works in all cases, so all we really are looking for is a solvent that works most of the time.   The video also underscores the *confusion* that surrounds removing labels.   They tested against paper labels the following removers: 1. Maplin Label Remover 2. Zinsser Universal Degreaser & Cleaner 3. WD-40 4. Methylated spirits   The confusion is that the video highlights that there are two *separate* problems, one of which I've solved long ago, but both of which they are attacking.   1. Removing a (paper in this case) label 2. Removing the underlying goop   I only am attacking the underlying goop, since soaking removes paper labels quite well already.   IMHO, when I'm looking for a cheap readily available household chemical to remove the goop, I don't need to make the problem *harder* by also asking that chemical to remove the (paper in this case) label, especially since there is already a cheap readily available household solved (aka dihydrogen oxide) which removes paper labels quite handily.

Robert Bannon <rbannon@yahoo.spam.nowhere.invalid>: Nov 19 07:08PM > The only thing I know of that will "dilute" gasoline and make it > less flammable is Carbon Tet - which has serious safety issues itself > and has been illegal for years.   This is interesting, even though carbon tetrachloride is probably difficult to get and hence isn't a standard household chemical.   You have a good point in that the goal of dilution is to reduce the deleterious qualities of the gasoline, which, let's face it, works just fine as a label goop remover.   The problem with the gasoline is obvious though, so that's what I'm trying to reduce by diluting with some other common household chemical.   I was hoping that the dilution would reduce the negative complications of gasoline.   From the scientific standpoint (which is really what I'm after), are you saying that a 50:50 mixture of methanol and gasoline would be *more* flammable than a 100% mixture of either one?

Robert Bannon <rbannon@yahoo.spam.nowhere.invalid>: Nov 19 07:08PM On Sat, 19 Nov 2016 14:38:22 +0000, Stormin' Norman wrote:   > I will reiterate my recommendation, use WD-40 for label removal.   I hear you on the miracle-in-a-can as I knew about it, and had tried it years ago, and decided it was a myth. But I can try it again, especially if, as you say, they supply a liquid version of this miracle in a can.   > If the odor is too offensive for your manly > sensibilities, buy the product in liquid form.   I appreciate that advice since I didn't know they made a liquid form. I have only used the spray, and found it to be substandard in every way for "lubrication" and "protection" of metal-on-metal surfaces.   > If you do not atomize it with a spray, the odor is far less > pervasive.   Thank you for that point, which I agree with you on, which is that for my use, the miracle in a can will best be the liquid version.   > With WD-40, apply a light layer to the label and just let it sit for a little while. Come back in 10 - 15 > minutes and the adhesive will have dissolved and the label will slide off with virtually no work.   Interesting that you mention a "label". I always remove the label first, generally by soaking in plain old water. Once I have the label removed, that's where I need the solvent to remove the goop.   > If you need a powerful solvent that will dissolve almost anything else, buy a can of lacquer thinner (yes, it > is available in California) LT is unbelievable in it's utility.   I think I've tried it, but I see I don't have any on my shelves at the moment, so, if California will allow me to buy it, I'll pick up some lacquer thinner if it's still sold.   > Use of and storage of gasoline and other highly carcinogenic chemicals mixtures inside the living area of a > residence is as inadvisable as smoking or leaving a loaded, unlocked firearm where might be accessible by a 5 > year old child.   And wipe your shoes before you come in the house. Otherwise, someone might slip on the mud.

Robert Bannon <rbannon@yahoo.spam.nowhere.invalid>: Nov 19 07:08PM On Sat, 19 Nov 2016 08:30:51 -0500, Frank wrote:   > what I am talking about. Then from the technical side, if the gasoline > is diluted the polar characteristics will change and it may not function > the same.   That's interesting that you're a retired chemist. My chemistry training stopped after Organic Chemistry (Morrison and Boyd) in college.   Water is polar. But are you sure gasoline is polar?   There must be a good reason gasoline is the best solvent for removing label goop, so, if you're saying the reason is its polarity, all we need to do is find a solvent with similar polarity.   But I've never found a solvent better than gasoline for removing the underlying goop (although no one solvent works at all times).   I'll google to see if gasoline is polar, but it may get complex because there is no one "chemical" called "gasoline". It's a mix of alkanes, alkenes, alkynes and aromatics (but I'll doublecheck since that's off the cuff).

Tekkie® <Tekkie@comcast.net>: Nov 19 02:40PM -0500 Robert Bannon posted for all of us...     > Any suggestions of common household chemicals that can dilute gasoline?   AS a FF I was going to let this pass but I see from some of your replies are less than "manly" as you put it.   Please let me know where you live, when you are going to do it and if there are innocent victims in your abode. I will update the run card and CAD so responders will not endanger themselves to recover your charred unrecognizable remains.   -- Tekkie

Robert Bannon <rbannon@yahoo.spam.nowhere.invalid>: Nov 19 07:08PM On Sat, 19 Nov 2016 07:04:41 -0500, dadiOH wrote:   > If you live near the border, go to Tijuana, go to a liquor store and buy > agua diente, It is pure (180 proof) ethanol. Fifty years ago it was $0.50 > per liter, going to be more now.   California is a big state (which is why they get away with being whacko) where I'm nowhere near the border. Too bad. That's a great price for 90% alcohol and 10% water.

Robert Bannon <rbannon@yahoo.spam.nowhere.invalid>: Nov 19 07:08PM On Sat, 19 Nov 2016 09:39:11 -0500, bitrex wrote:   > One time, not thinking what I was doing, I poured a little hardware > store acetone into a Styrofoam cup, and instantly ended up with a big > gloppy mess of acetone and melted Styrofoam on my lap.   Every kid I know of (including me) has made what we called "napalm" simply by melting the Styrofoam peanuts into a cup of gasoline.   We made better jellied gasoline using dish detergent, but I think it's a pretty common experience for kids world wide to melt styrofoam into gasoline.   All kids made pipe bombs too, which were far more dangerous when you compare it, just as we all mixed the pool chemicals that exploded in a gush. Most of the time we were more cautious than we needed to be, especially when playing with the M80's under the ice.

Stormin' Norman <norman@schwarzkopf.invalid>: Nov 19 07:45PM >I hear you on the miracle-in-a-can as I knew about it, and had tried it >years ago, and decided it was a myth. But I can try it again, especially if, >as you say, they supply a liquid version of this miracle in a can.   You can get a gallon of it for about $17 through Amazon. That should last you for years.     >I appreciate that advice since I didn't know they made a liquid form. >I have only used the spray, and found it to be substandard in every way for >"lubrication" and "protection" of metal-on-metal surfaces.   That is because it is a penetrating oil and water displacement agent. It was originally developed for protecting the outer skin and the fuel tanks of the Atlas missile.     >I think I've tried it, but I see I don't have any on my shelves at the >moment, so, if California will allow me to buy it, I'll pick up some lacquer >thinner if it's still sold.   A gallon through Amazon should be less than $20. I really hate going to Home Depot. The gallons are a much better deal than quarts.   >> year old child.   >And wipe your shoes before you come in the house. >Otherwise, someone might slip on the mud.   Good advice, wiping your shoes also helps keep unnecessary dirt out of the house. One of our critters is a very sweet, personable and affectionate donkey. Every opportunity she gets to come in the house, she sneaks in, she doesn't ever cause a problem, other than the dirt that comes in on her hooves.

burfordTjustice <burfordTjustice@tues.uk>: Nov 19 03:13PM -0500 On Sat, 19 Nov 2016 00:05:58 -0000 (UTC) > dilute it (maybe 10:1 or even maybe 100:1)?   > Any suggestions of common household chemicals that can dilute > gasoline?   Acorn Flour works best.

Robert Bannon <rbannon@yahoo.spam.nowhere.invalid>: Nov 19 08:28PM On Sat, 19 Nov 2016 10:57:44 -0800, Oren wrote:   > For removing labels I was suggesting lighter fluid (NAPHTHA) to remove > labels. Not suggesting mixing it with gas. I removes labels, tar, > grease & oil stains. <https://tinyurl.com/hpzopew>   The problem isn't removing the label, but the goop under the label once the label is removed.   The Naphtha probably works but does it work better than gasoline? Dunno.   I'd need to find naphtha in the stores to test it out against gasoline (which works just fine for removing most goop).   In the rare case that gasoline fails to remove the goop, acetone often works (but acetone fails more than does gasoline).   > I wasn't joking about peanut butter (smooth variety) either. It takes > longer so the oil soaks in and loosens the label. YMMV   I just use water to remove the label. a. I fill the jar with water so it sinks b. I drop it into a larger bucket of water   You can't beat water for being a readily available household chemical. But water only removes the label.   My problem is removing the goop. You can't beat gasoline for being a readily available household chemical for removing the goop.   The only problem with the gasoline is it has to be used outdoors. So that's why I'm trying to find how to make it so that it can be used indoors.

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net>: Nov 19 02:50PM -0500 >> You posted a link with your account ID. That's not very smart, and >> it isn't accessible by anyone else.   > That is the point of DropBox - it allows one to share large and small files without risking a direct connection. My "account ID" is the sharing link. I have used it for years without incident. Nor is there anything in it that is at all actionable or confidential       BTW: The link that you posted was to an AOL E-mail account, not to Dropbox:   <https://mail.aol.com/webmail/getPart?uid=33646633&partId=2&scope=STANDARD&saveAs=Trump.jpg>   -- Never piss off an Engineer!   They don't get mad.   They don't get even.   They go for over unity! ;-)

"Ron D." <Ron.Dozier@gmail.com>: Nov 19 11:18AM -0800 I totally agree. I rebuilt a nearly 40 YO gas dryer:   I upgraded the drum lighting to LED. I upgraded the kind of thrust bearings. I added two thrust bearings. I bought a new old stock bearing assembly for the fan and upgraded the grease. I painted and replaced the new nylon hinges on the filter door. Nylon and heat don't like each other. I painted the rusty side that was next to the washer. I replaced the 40 YO drum belt. I replaced the blower belt. I upgraded/replaced, made from scratch a duct gasket. The thrust bearings were $24.00 not including postage.   I changed a set screw to brass tipped so the pulley would slip if the bearing housing froze. Now a cool upgrade would be a belt slip detector.   All of these are minor upgrades, but they make it better.   I have a few more planned:   1) Make a new lint filter 2) Make it easier to do preventative maintenance by adding Threadserts instead of sheet metal screws.   The upgrades were costly. The grease was about $30.00. The material to make the filter was about $70.00, but I'll use that also to make the lint filter. The threadsert kit was about $80.00 USD.   I will try to measure and determine the type of wire in the ignitor and maybe eventually make a replacement. I have two brand new ones.

amdx <nojunk@knology.net>: Nov 19 11:45AM -0600 On 11/19/2016 8:25 AM, bitrex wrote: > channel, or intermittent contact, or wires shorting against each other > somehow.   > Any suggestions to improve my game here?   Optivisor! I just cobbled together a headphone cord to a RCA phono plug cord this morning. Trying to sell some Pioneer HDM700 speakers at our yard sale and had to connect an audio source to an amp.   Mikek

You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to sci.electronics.repair+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.