sci.electronics.repair@googlegroups.com

Google Groups

Robert Bannon <rbannon@yahoo.spam.nowhere.invalid>: Nov 20 04:54PM On Sun, 20 Nov 2016 09:53:52 -0500, Michael A. Terrell wrote:   > A quart bottle of citrus based Goo Gone lasted me over a decade.   I'll bet you a jar of mayonnaise also lasts a while. But making it yourself is far more enjoyable and far more tasty.   I'll bet you a jar of toilet bowl cleaner lasts a while too. But once you've used muriatic acid, you'll never use a commercial solution ever again.   If you knew how utterly *EFFECTIVE* gasoline is for dissolving most goop, I'd bet you'd never use that goo gone stuff ever again.   I haven't tried the googone stuff, but gasoline literally melts most goop off on contact.   How long does it take for the googone stuff to melt all the goop off in most cases?

Robert Bannon <rbannon@yahoo.spam.nowhere.invalid>: Nov 20 04:54PM On Sun, 20 Nov 2016 10:47:55 +0000, Andy Burns wrote:   > That's what I was wondering too, one aerosol can of label-remover has > lasted me several years so far ...   That's cheating.   That's like buying mayonnaise in a jar. Sure, it's easy.   But it's no fun. Making it yourself takes technique; but that's the fun of it.   Plus, often, a home-spun solution works far better (e.g., muriatic acid in an encrusted toilet bowl works extremely well, and certainly worlds' better than any grocery store solution you've ever used in your life!).   Sure, muriatic acid is dangerous. But it's a readily available chemical that works like you can't believe, for cleaning toilet bowl crud.   Same thing here. Anyone, without a morsel of thought, can *buy* a ready-made solution.   Why even have a newsgroup titled anything.repair if all you do is buy a ready-made solution?   Remember, I *already* have a perfectly good solution using three readily available solvents: 1. Water (to remove paper labels) 2. Gasoline (to remove most goop) 3. Acetone (to remove the rare goop impervious to gasoline)   The only reason for the question was to figure out how to chemically cut the gasoline down to 1/10th of full strength (or more) so that it possibly could be used inside instead of outside.   It's not more complicated than that.   If you want to buy your solutions without thinking further about them, that's fine as it's a perfectly viable and sensible approach.   There are plenty of people who don't cut down their own trees, and who don't mix their own cement and who don't dig their own post holes and who don't repair their own oscilloscopes, etc.   But I wouldn't think we'd find them on these two repair newsgroups, who are all about getting scientific and technical and practical advice on home spun solutions.

Robert Bannon <rbannon@yahoo.spam.nowhere.invalid>: Nov 20 04:54PM On Sat, 19 Nov 2016 19:25:47 -0800, Jeff Liebermann wrote:   > least 3 times as expensive per gallon. Why do you need to dilute the > gasoline? How big or how many labels are you removing that the > process requires gallons of gasoline?   Thanks for thinking Jeff, and for asking thinking questions. This question was always about chemistry.   Answers: 1. I only remove about 1 label a week (or so). 2. It's not the expense; it's the pleasure of using a home remedy solution that actually works (if peanut butter really worked, that would be fine). 3. I've tried *all* the chemicals I keep at home. 4. Gasoline works more often than all the rest. 5. Acetone works second best (but not as well as gasoline). 6. Gasoline stinks up the house if used inside. 7. Plus it's too flammable to store under the kitchen sink. 8. So I'm just trying to use vastly diluted gasoline. 9. My hope is that a 1:10 gas:diluent solution will still work. 10. If it's a 1:10 solution of gas:diluent, it might not stink so bad. 11. And, a 1:10 solution might be more safely stored indoors. 12. That's the only reason I ask the scientific question.   I only remove a label about once every week or two.

Robert Bannon <rbannon@yahoo.spam.nowhere.invalid>: Nov 20 04:54PM > Because of the evaporation rate of MOST of these solvents, using it > ON the label makes a lot of sense because it keeps the solvent in > contact with the glue longer before it evaporates. Try it.   This is an interesting technique to keep the label on while applying the solvent. It won't work, I'm sure, as well in plastic labels, but it might work well for the paper labels.   Thanks for that suggestion. I will try it soon.

Robert Bannon <rbannon@yahoo.spam.nowhere.invalid>: Nov 20 04:54PM On Sat, 19 Nov 2016 19:46:09 -0800, Jeff Liebermann wrote:   > Depends on the household. If cooking dinner is much like a chemstry > experiment, then that would be an uncommon but appropriate household.   This was written by a mad scientist who lives in your area: 'Your Mother was a Chemist" http://kitchenscience.sci-toys.com/

"Ron D." <Ron.Dozier@gmail.com>: Nov 20 11:43AM -0800 How about Oops original? https://www.sherwin-williams.com/document/MSDS/en/033873007556/   A hair dryer works on some labels.   Or dry cleaning solvent: http://www.shieldindustries.com/F_DCF.htm   See the specs for MSDS.   They include a lot of the solvents that were determined to work.   Gasoline in the house is about as stupid as operating a generator in the house. I hope you don't have natural gas appliances? I suspect you don't, otherwise we probably would not be having this discussion.

etpm@whidbey.com: Nov 20 11:51AM -0800 On Sun, 20 Nov 2016 02:42:09 -0000 (UTC), Robert Bannon   >Dunno. I never tried it.   >But that's the theoretical problem with consumer alcohol (which is a lot of >water with some alcohol). Ethanol is easily available in any decent hardware store as denatured alcohol. It has a tiny amount of methanol in it to avoid taxes because most people won't drink it.

Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net>: Nov 20 02:50PM -0500 > 7. Plus it's too flammable to store under the kitchen sink.   Glad you realize that. Now think about this.   Once you dilute the gasoline, it will still release fumes, carry the exact same risk, and smell just as bad.   -- Dan Espen

clare@snyder.on.ca: Nov 20 03:49PM -0500 On Sun, 20 Nov 2016 16:54:37 -0000 (UTC), Robert Bannon >off on contact.   >How long does it take for the googone stuff to melt all the goop off in most >cases? You are HOPELESS. No fool like an old fool.

clare@snyder.on.ca: Nov 20 03:51PM -0500 On Sun, 20 Nov 2016 16:54:38 -0000 (UTC), Robert Bannon   >But I wouldn't think we'd find them on these two repair newsgroups, who are >all about getting scientific and technical and practical advice on home spun >solutions. IF you could "dilute" gasoline 10 "1/10th" strength it would take 10 times as long to do the job, or only do 1/10 the job.   You are beating a VERY dead horse.

Robert Bannon <rbannon@yahoo.spam.nowhere.invalid>: Nov 20 09:29PM > IF you could "dilute" gasoline 10 "1/10th" strength it would take 10 > times as long to do the job, or only do 1/10 the job.   No. That's not correct. More appropriately that's almost certainly not correct. (but there is a very slight chance that it could be correct).   It all depends on the minimum effective dose (and on solubility of goop in gas).   As an out-of-context example, of what I am telling you: a. I can put out a lit match with a gallon of water. b. Or, I can put out that match with a quart of water. c. Or I can put out that match with a spoon of water.   If the minimum effective dose is a spoon, then the gallon of water is overkill.   Let's take the LD50 for poisons as another example: a. Let's say you can kill a rat with 1 ounce of warfarin. b. If you use a pound of warfarin, you'll kill the rat. c. But if you dilute that pound in half, you'll still kill the rat. d. In fact, you can dilute that pound 1:16 and still kill that rat.   Same with using Acetone as nail polish remover. You can dilute 100% acetone by a LOT where it still works fine.   The question we don't know the answer to is what the minimum effective concentration of the solvents in gasoline that dissolve the goop.   I'm sure 1:10 is fine, but I don't know that for sure since I don't know how to dilute the gasoline yet to test it out.

Robert Bannon <rbannon@yahoo.spam.nowhere.invalid>: Nov 20 09:29PM On Sun, 20 Nov 2016 14:50:39 -0500, Dan Espen wrote:   > Once you dilute the gasoline, it will still release fumes, > carry the exact same risk, and smell just as bad.   Maybe. Maybe not.   If I piss in your cup of water, it will stink like urine and look like urine and taste like urine (don't ask - I don't know).   Now, if I dilute that piss 10:1 or 100:1, I'd wager none of the deleterious effects will occur.   That's why they say the solution to pollution is dilution. All chemicals work that way.   Why is gasoline any different than all other chemicals?

Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net>: Nov 20 05:05PM -0500 > That's why they say the solution to pollution is dilution. > All chemicals work that way.   > Why is gasoline any different than all other chemicals?   I'm sorry, that's not how chemistry works. You quoting an old saying doesn't even sound logical. Here's what Google says:   Pollution mixing zones are streams or bodies of water where polluters (industrial, municipal or individual) can legally obtain a permit to dump bio-accumulative chemicals, sewage, mining waste water at high concentrations based on the mistaken old rule that "dilution is the solution to pollution."   In chemistry, when you mix two compounds, you either get a reaction or a mixture (no chemical reaction).   If you get a reaction, the odds are, you no longer have gasoline and it will no longer work as before,   If you don't get a reaction, the gasoline is still there, creating fumes, and it's still flammable.   -- Dan Espen

clare@snyder.on.ca: Nov 20 08:12PM -0500 On Sun, 20 Nov 2016 21:29:40 -0000 (UTC), Robert Bannon >concentration of the solvents in gasoline that dissolve the goop.   >I'm sure 1:10 is fine, but I don't know that for sure since I don't know how >to dilute the gasoline yet to test it out. Get it through your thick skull. IT CANNOT BE DONE.   This is the last you will here from me on this thread.

Charles Bishop <ctbishop@earthlink.net>: Nov 20 06:43PM -0700 In article <o0skge$g7h$3@news.mixmin.net>, > 11. And, a 1:10 solution might be more safely stored indoors. > 12. That's the only reason I ask the scientific question.   > I only remove a label about once every week or two.   You mentioned 1 to 10 a while back and I forgot to ask 1 of what to 10 of what?   If it's 1 of gasoline to 10 of whatever, and this works, why not use the whatever full strength? Because you're choosing the whatever based on price - it costs at least less than gasoline - why not use it?   Others have mentioned the danger and I don't think it's severe if you are using a baby food jar of it, sealed.   If you are doing once a week, do the prep work inside - soak in water, scrape most of it off, using a single edge blade for most of the gunk, and then finish outside. If the weather isn't good, store several weeks worth until it is.   -- chalres

Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>: Nov 20 09:35PM -0800 On Sun, 20 Nov 2016 16:54:40 -0000 (UTC), Robert Bannon   >This was written by a mad scientist who lives in your area: > 'Your Mother was a Chemist" > http://kitchenscience.sci-toys.com/   Yep. I think that I recognize him and the obnoxious African grey parrot. Lives in BC. See photo at: <http://kitchenscience.sci-toys.com/Introduction>   -- Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

"ChairMan" <nospam@thanks.com>: Nov 20 11:45PM -0600 >> in most cases? > You are HOPELESS. > No fool like an old fool.   No fool like ald fool thats so easily trolled

bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net>: Nov 20 02:00PM -0500 On 11/19/2016 10:51 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote: > rather a loose spiral with the pitch equal to about twice the foil > wire.   > I can supply a photo if my description is too muddled.   Nice idea, I'll try that.

isw <isw@witzend.com>: Nov 20 08:48PM -0800 In article <whZXz.32607$cz2.21914@fx31.iad>,   > I sand down the wires, tin them, and then do my best to solder them up, > but the holes in the terminals are very small and I don't see as well > these days.   IME, the fiber "strength members" twisted in with the wires are a big part of the problem. Using my trusty magnifying visor, I carefully separate out all the non-electric strands and hold them out of the way with tape. Separate out enough so the strands will be at least an inch longer than the length you'll need for attaching the wires; more on that later.   The wire strands are far too small to sand without damage, and it's not necessary once the plastic strands are out of the way. Just use a well-tinned hot iron (750 F at least; 800 is better) and a dab of flux and the insulation will burn right off and the wire will tin.   After the wires are soldered to the plug (and check the connections by listening; red is not always "right") free up those fiber strands you so carefully taped out of the way before. With a bit of slack in the wires (for strain relief), give the fibers a couple wraps around the back part of the plug and apply a drop of superglue (if it doesn't go off, sprinkle a pinch of baking soda on it).   Now look around, spot the plug's back cover lying on the bench, curse loudly, and start over, but this time slide the back cover on the cable *first*!   Doing it that way makes very reliable connections, and the fiber strands take any tension off the fragile wires when the cable gets pulled.   Isaac

bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net>: Nov 20 11:50PM -0500 On 11/20/2016 11:48 PM, isw wrote:   > Now look around, spot the plug's back cover lying on the bench, curse > loudly, and start over, but this time slide the back cover on the cable > *first*!   Yes. I am guilty of this. :-(

Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>: Nov 20 09:41PM -0800 On Sun, 20 Nov 2016 23:50:53 -0500, bitrex >> loudly, and start over, but this time slide the back cover on the cable >> *first*!   >Yes. I am guilty of this. :-(   Ditto, but my solution was not to start over. I cut a wide slit along the length of the plastic connector cover with a hack saw or Dremel tool cutoff disk. The slit was wide enough that I could slide the wires through the slit. I then screwed the plastic cover onto the plug, and filled the slit with hot melt glue. A little sanding it looked almost as good as if I had done it correctly in the first place.   -- Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

shaheedamirkhan@gmail.com: Nov 20 03:03PM -0800 Op zondag 14 april 2002 10:23:05 UTC-3 schreef Jan Wemmel: > type that I can use?   > Thanks for your help!!   > Jan   hello can anyone tel me the value of the thermistor ??

lagagnon@gmail.com: Nov 20 11:49AM -0800 I have a Samlex 120VAC-13.5VDC at 35A switch mode power supply for my amateur radio equipment. Working great for last 7 years. Recently it's now producing "swooshing" noise in my radio receiver, especially on frequencies from 1.8-10MHz. Took it apart and noticed blown tops on the 3 output filter electrolytics, so I replaced those. But that did not help.   I could replace the 2 larger input filter electrolytics but they "look" OK and I wonder if maybe I should be thinking of also replacing the switcher MOSFET - I don't know where else the noise could be coming from?   Any ideas greatly appreciated.

"Charles" <charlesschuler@comcast.net>: Nov 20 04:52PM -0500 wrote in message news:0f362b7e-4756-4027-be47-79014bc937f5@googlegroups.com...   I have a Samlex 120VAC-13.5VDC at 35A switch mode power supply for my amateur radio equipment. Working great for last 7 years. Recently it's now producing "swooshing" noise in my radio receiver, especially on frequencies from 1.8-10MHz. Took it apart and noticed blown tops on the 3 output filter electrolytics, so I replaced those. But that did not help.   I could replace the 2 larger input filter electrolytics but they "look" OK and I wonder if maybe I should be thinking of also replacing the switcher MOSFET - I don't know where else the noise could be coming from?   Any ideas greatly appreciated.   If the supply is normal in all other ways, it could be that your replacement caps are not suitable. Filtering switcher hash requires very low esr caps.

ohger1s@gmail.com: Nov 20 02:08PM -0800 > I have a Samlex 120VAC-13.5VDC at 35A switch mode power supply for my amateur radio equipment. Working great for last 7 years. Recently it's now producing "swooshing" noise in my radio receiver, especially on frequencies from 1.8-10MHz. Took it apart and noticed blown tops on the 3 output filter electrolytics, so I replaced those. But that did not help.   > I could replace the 2 larger input filter electrolytics but they "look" OK and I wonder if maybe I should be thinking of also replacing the switcher MOSFET - I don't know where else the noise could be coming from?   > Any ideas greatly appreciated.   I've never seen a power mosfet do anything but work normally or become zero ohm jumpers.   Are you sure it's the supply? Put a scope to the output and see what's going on. As far as the capacitors "looking" OK, remember that electrolytics need not be vented or bulged to be bad. Either put an ESR meter to *all* of them in the supply (including the primary) or scope them (preferred method).

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.