- Removing battery corrosion - 9 Updates
- Will Deoxit on a circuit board cause problems? - 4 Updates
- Dead Scientific Atlanta Explorer 2200 cable box - 3 Updates
| Ralph Mowery <rmowery28146@earthlink.net>: Feb 13 06:22PM -0500 In article <4c8c7cb0-1dd8-4125-abee-35ccbd8791e5@googlegroups.com>, pfjw@aol.com says... > > water from a/c is free > If you are writing of condensate water - that is, perhaps, some of the least 'healthy' water on the planet. > a) It condenses on (mostly) aluminum that is exposed to (typically) 90% return/10% fresh air. The return air is freighted with whatever is in the house/building/whatever that passes through typically very coarse filters. So, dander, dust, bacteria, grease, and whatever virus is in circulation. The fresh air could have very nearly anything in it. > b) Whatever corrosion exists on the fins becomes part of it. > c) And it drains via channels and/or tubes that could be 'growing' in their own right. Even if anti-mold tablets are utilized, *THAt* chemical is no fun either. It was the Legionnaires disease that was traced to the AC water. |
| John-Del <ohger1s@gmail.com>: Feb 13 03:29PM -0800 On Tuesday, February 13, 2018 at 6:22:43 PM UTC-5, Ralph Mowery wrote: > > b) Whatever corrosion exists on the fins becomes part of it. > > c) And it drains via channels and/or tubes that could be 'growing' in their own right. Even if anti-mold tablets are utilized, *THAt* chemical is no fun either. > It was the Legionnaires disease that was traced to the AC water. Yeah, but what are the odds a Legionnaire will be using a steam iron? But in all seriousness, wasn't it the AC duct work that was thought to be the breeding ground for the bacterium? |
| John Robertson <spam@flippers.com>: Feb 13 04:57PM -0800 >> use the 91% isopropyl alcohol, so it evaporates quickly and leaves >> little water residue behind. (Then leave it dry well before use). > My sovereign cleaning method for this is to use a very strong concentration of baking soda mixed into distilled water. About a tablespoon of soda into a teaspoon of water to make a paste. This will neutralize any corrosives from the batteries - but the material is highly conductive in its own right. So, after application with a small toothbrush or spiral brush, rinse again as yo have with distilled water, then alcohol to displace the water. No, no, NO! Sorry Peter, you missed this one. And your advice is normally spot-on! Batteries use an AKALAINE (a base not an acid) so using another alkaline product (baking soda) will only exacerbate the problem. To neutralize a base (alkaline battery leakage) you need to use a mild acid. Get some white vinegar and mix with distilled (if your water is hard) water 50:50 and use that solution to wash the residue away and to stop incipient leakage from continuing. I wrote up a page back in the late 90s after talking with an engineer from EverReady about battery leakage: http://flippers.com/battery.html > If severe, and the alternative is landfill - I have been known to run an entire chassis through the dishwasher (one without an exposed Calrod), or use a bit of lye-based oven cleaner on a cotton swab - again rinse carefully when done. Needs must when the devil rides. Um, again you are recommending using a base to try and arrest the action of another base... Lye is a strong base, and bases are what are used to etch circuit boards, eh? Running circuit boards through dishwashers can be fine, just skip the detergent! Seal DIP switches, pots, relays, etc. first... > Peter Wieck > Melrose Park, PA John :-#)# -- (Please post followups or tech inquiries to the USENET newsgroup) John's Jukes Ltd. MOVED to #7 - 3979 Marine Way, Burnaby, BC, Canada V5J 5E3 (604)872-5757 (Pinballs, Jukes, Video Games) www.flippers.com "Old pinballers never die, they just flip out." |
| "pfjw@aol.com" <pfjw@aol.com>: Feb 13 05:23PM -0800 This is a vintage transistor radio, likely using a carbon-zinc battery (LeClanche Cell). They use an acid-based electrolyte. As carefully detailed. Latter-day batteries *tend* to use alkaline-based electrolytes - making most of the discussions herein accurate. But - not in all examples of all cases. I try to advise based on good chemistry based on the data as presented. Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
| tabbypurr@gmail.com: Feb 13 05:39PM -0800 On Tuesday, 13 February 2018 23:29:26 UTC, John-Del wrote: > > > c) And it drains via channels and/or tubes that could be 'growing' in their own right. Even if anti-mold tablets are utilized, *THAt* chemical is no fun either. > > It was the Legionnaires disease that was traced to the AC water. > Yeah, but what are the odds a Legionnaire will be using a steam iron? But in all seriousness, wasn't it the AC duct work that was thought to be the breeding ground for the bacterium? Legionnaires bugs are killed by heating above 60C. NT |
| "pfjw@aol.com" <pfjw@aol.com>: Feb 13 06:02PM -0800 > Legionnaires bugs are killed by heating above 60C. And, were Legionnaires' Disease the only issue (it is not), then condensate water might be just fine. But it is not. Again, impregnating one's clothes, sheets, and so forth with concentrated allergens, concentrated fungicides - or the actual spores of same - and various other materials, easily avoided, is simply stupid. Advocating such behavior repeatedly in the face of obvious evidence otherwise is both stupid, and possibly criminal. What you do in your own house with only you as the victim is up to you. But visiting such idiocy on others, friends, family and so forth, is *NOT* up to you. Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
| John Robertson <spam@flippers.com>: Feb 13 10:27PM -0800 > I try to advise based on good chemistry based on the data as presented. > Peter Wieck > Melrose Park, PA Crap, right, as the OP stated zinc-carbon battery using either ammonium chloride or zinc chloride in the electrolyte which are indeed mild acids and thus you are certainly correct to recommend using a base material to neutralize it. Should have realized you wouldn't make that sort of mistake and double checked my own assumptions. Sorry! John :-#(# |
| Mike Coon <gravity@mjcoon.plus.com>: Feb 14 08:56AM In article <c4312926-76a7-4748-8827-b248dc58d960@googlegroups.com>, ohger1s@gmail.com says... > Yeah, but what are the odds a Legionnaire will be using a steam iron? But in all seriousness, wasn't it the AC duct work that was thought to be the breeding ground for the bacterium? Perhaps more likely to be indulging in ex-st[r]eam ironing? More seriously, I think shower heads have been implicated too. Mike. |
| Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz>: Feb 14 09:01AM > But you brought up a question. Electrical solder is rosin. What exactly > is roisn and how does it work for a flux? Is it the same thing used for > playing a violin, which as far as I know, is made from pine tree sap? yes that's the stuff. what it does is when heated decompose into acids which dissolve oxides, and into hydrocarbons which reduce oxides back to clean metal, all of which which helps the molten solder to wet the metal. -- This email has not been checked by half-arsed antivirus software |
| Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>: Feb 13 08:53AM -0800 >you've failed to answer the question. You told me to I learn >something I already know. How? Think of it as a refresh cycle, as in dynamic RAM. If you don't use a word, we tend to forget it. It should help you recall the correct term, ummm... whatever it was, for an eye, ear, nose, and throat doctor. >No-one ever said it would be useful, just that it would >reduce noise. And it does a bit. I believer you may have misread the data sheet: <http://store.caig.com/s.nl/it.A/id.2847/.f> "Shields Against Noise and RFI" By implication and due to general lack of specifics and details, methinks they are referring to RF noise, not audible acoustic noise. If Deoxit really did reduce RF noise and RF interference, then it would need to apply some kind of barrier. There are two general types, absorptive and reflective. Unfortunately the data sheet also mentions: "Improves Conductivity" which could be either absorptive or reflective, because human skin is mildly conductive. Without further detail from Deoxit, I can't offer a mechanism for how it might function to reduce RF noise and RF interference. -- 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 |
| tabbypurr@gmail.com: Feb 13 09:18AM -0800 On Tuesday, 13 February 2018 16:53:26 UTC, Jeff Liebermann wrote: > word, we tend to forget it. It should help you recall the correct > term, ummm... whatever it was, for an eye, ear, nose, and throat > doctor. you seem determined to miss the point and engage in a silly pissing contest. No matter. > I believer you may have misread the data sheet: > <http://store.caig.com/s.nl/it.A/id.2847/.f> > "Shields Against Noise and RFI" no, I didn't misread it > By implication and due to general lack of specifics and details, > methinks they are referring to RF noise, not audible acoustic noise. Of course that is not implied, it is inferred by you. I would think it evident that the only possible credible claim re noise reduction is that it may reduce noise caused by oxidised contacts. That it might reduce other forms of noise in real world electronic circuits seems wholly unrealistic. I would therefore think it somewhat obvious that I was being facetious when discussing it's sonic noise reduction properties, which technically it does have, even if they bear no connection to its real world intended use. My apology for thinking all that obvious. NT |
| Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>: Feb 13 10:08AM -0800 >> doctor. >you seem determined to miss the point and engage in a silly >pissing contest. No matter. Guilty as charged. If needed, I can supply a signed confession for a nominal charge. However, simply because I'm not providing the reply which you are expecting does not make this a pissing contest. >> <http://store.caig.com/s.nl/it.A/id.2847/.f> >> "Shields Against Noise and RFI" >no, I didn't misread it If you insist. Perhaps you misinterpreted it? >> By implication and due to general lack of specifics and details, >> methinks they are referring to RF noise, not audible acoustic noise. >Of course that is not implied, it is inferred by you. Correct. The author of the data sheet implied it and I inferred it. Using "noise" and "RFI" in the same sentence suggests that they might be connected in some way. Since audio was not specifically mentioned while interference was mentioned, perhaps they both involve RF? Either way, you cannot assume that the particular form of noise mentioned in the data sheet is audible or that Dexoit can be expected to function under water or in the ear. >noise reduction is that it may reduce noise caused by oxidised >contacts. That it might reduce other forms of noise in real world >electronic circuits seems wholly unrealistic. Nothing is evident until demonstrated, proven, and tested. A simple test for this are numbers, the lack of which suggest that such performance claims are far from evident or obvious. In this case, the noise reduction should be specified and measured in dB decrease in accordance to a repeatable testing procedure. What Deoxit might do in a real world or under non-specific conditions is of no concern. It might be possible to contrive such a test and associated measurement at audio levels, but the mention of RFI in the same sentence suggests that it is an RF noise level, which would be more difficult to demonstrate and measure. Unfortunately, the picture in the data sheet is that of the rear of an audio amplifier, which suggests an audio test. Therefore, unless additional clarification arrives from Caig Labs, such a test cannot be performed. I'll leave it an open question while awaiting clarification and possibly test results. >which technically it does have, even if they bear no connection >to its real world intended use. My apology for thinking all >that obvious. The only thing that is obvious here is that you are frustrated by my unwillingness to accept your observations, deductions, and conclusions at face value. You have failed to see the value in refreshing your vocabulary. You have failed to distinguish between acoustic and RF noise. You have failed to recognize that miraculous performance claims by overpriced solvents must be tested, measured, and proven. You have failed to recognize that all things that are obvious, beyond any need of verification, are invariably wrong. You have also failed to agree with anything I have offered, which is prima facie evidence that you are most likely in error. You even failed by thinking that all things are obvious. With such a dismal success rate, there is little hope of recovery. I'll accept your apology for trying to think the obvious and leave it at that. -- 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 |
| tabbypurr@gmail.com: Feb 13 11:51AM -0800 On Tuesday, 13 February 2018 18:08:10 UTC, Jeff Liebermann wrote: > The only thing that is obvious here is that you are frustrated by my > unwillingness to accept your observations, deductions, and conclusions > at face value. I just see no value in them > You have failed to see the value in refreshing your > vocabulary. wrong, yet again > You have failed to distinguish between acoustic and RF > noise. wrong & silly > You have failed to recognize that miraculous performance > claims by overpriced solvents must be tested, measured, and proven. wrong & silly > You have failed to recognize that all things that are obvious, beyond > any need of verification, are invariably wrong. wrong & silly > You have also failed > to agree with anything I have offered, which is prima facie evidence > that you are most likely in error. wrong & silly > You even failed by thinking that > all things are obvious. wrong & silly > With such a dismal success rate, there is > little hope of recovery. I'll accept your apology for trying to think > the obvious and leave it at that. just silly. I won't spend any more time on your weirdness today. NT |
| kellercolantoni@gmail.com: Feb 13 09:04AM -0800 hi, where is the fuse located |
| John-Del <ohger1s@gmail.com>: Feb 13 10:47AM -0800 > hi, where is the fuse located Look in the fuse holder... |
| Terry Schwartz <tschw10117@aol.com>: Feb 13 11:12AM -0800 > hi, where is the fuse located Located a decade back in time..... |
| 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. |
No Response to "Digest for sci.electronics.repair@googlegroups.com - 16 updates in 3 topics"
Post a Comment