Hi all,
Using my Peak ESR/Capacitance meter, I was carrying out in-circuit
checks on large electros in the linear PSU I've previously mentioned
here. I was getting a lot of "in-circuit/leaky" warnings for two of
them, so I pulled them out completely and am getting the same warning
when they're checked out of circuit, which surprised me as it's
unusual IME. Anyway, the leak would have to be very bad to result in
ripple, would it not? AFAIK, the leading culprit for ripple is caps
which have lost a significant amount of capacitance or else developed
a very large ESR. Do I have that right?
I'd like a "second opinion" as it were on the leakiness of these caps.
What's the best old-school method for testing for this? I just want to
ensure the ESR meter isn't faulty (highly unlikely but the possibility
must be eliminated to be sure).
CD.
PS: the aforementioned caps are 47000uF 16V Vishay ones - and I have a
brand new spare that's also testing as "leaky"!
On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 18:03:51 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
wrote:
Hi all,
Using my Peak ESR/Capacitance meter, I was carrying out in-circuit
checks on large electros in the linear PSU I've previously mentioned
here. I was getting a lot of "in-circuit/leaky" warnings for two of
them, so I pulled them out completely and am getting the same warning
when they're checked out of circuit, which surprised me as it's
unusual IME. Anyway, the leak would have to be very bad to result in >>ripple, would it not? AFAIK, the leading culprit for ripple is caps
which have lost a significant amount of capacitance or else developed
a very large ESR. Do I have that right?
I'd like a "second opinion" as it were on the leakiness of these caps. >>What's the best old-school method for testing for this? I just want to >>ensure the ESR meter isn't faulty (highly unlikely but the possibility
must be eliminated to be sure).
CD.
PS: the aforementioned caps are 47000uF 16V Vishay ones - and I have a >>brand new spare that's also testing as "leaky"!
How leaky? You could apply 16 volts and measure current for a while.
It will typically taper off over some minutes or hours.
An electro that hasn't been used for some time will be leaky at first.
That's normal.
Expect a 47m cap to leak more than a 47u. Your capmeter may not know
the value.
It's interesting to test elec and polymer caps, current vs voltage
over time, forward and reverse.
On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 22:41:09 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 13:28:05 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 18:03:51 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> >>>wrote:
Hi all,
Using my Peak ESR/Capacitance meter, I was carrying out in-circuit >>>>checks on large electros in the linear PSU I've previously mentioned >>>>here. I was getting a lot of "in-circuit/leaky" warnings for two of >>>>them, so I pulled them out completely and am getting the same warning >>>>when they're checked out of circuit, which surprised me as it's
unusual IME. Anyway, the leak would have to be very bad to result in >>>>ripple, would it not? AFAIK, the leading culprit for ripple is caps >>>>which have lost a significant amount of capacitance or else developed
a very large ESR. Do I have that right?
I'd like a "second opinion" as it were on the leakiness of these caps. >>>>What's the best old-school method for testing for this? I just want to >>>>ensure the ESR meter isn't faulty (highly unlikely but the possibility >>>>must be eliminated to be sure).
CD.
PS: the aforementioned caps are 47000uF 16V Vishay ones - and I have a >>>>brand new spare that's also testing as "leaky"!
How leaky? You could apply 16 volts and measure current for a while.
It will typically taper off over some minutes or hours.
Well, the 'perfect cap' in series with an ammeter will cause an
initial surge of current which will taper off over time and eventually >>settle at zero. But a leaky cap will continue to pass a small amount
of current, I would assume, indefinitely? Again, I would guess that a >>real-world cap in good condition would continue to pass a tiny amount
of current - a negligible amount?
An electrolytic is hardly a perfect cap. After the theoretical cap
charge, you might see some mA of leakage, tapering off to uA's after
some minutes or hours.
If the current ever increases, as it will at some voltage above rated,
it's probably on its way to destruction.
Get a power supply and an ammeter and experiment. Your capmeter is
obviously not telling you much.
On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 13:28:05 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 18:03:51 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> >>wrote:
Hi all,
Using my Peak ESR/Capacitance meter, I was carrying out in-circuit
checks on large electros in the linear PSU I've previously mentioned >>>here. I was getting a lot of "in-circuit/leaky" warnings for two of
them, so I pulled them out completely and am getting the same warning >>>when they're checked out of circuit, which surprised me as it's
unusual IME. Anyway, the leak would have to be very bad to result in >>>ripple, would it not? AFAIK, the leading culprit for ripple is caps
which have lost a significant amount of capacitance or else developed
a very large ESR. Do I have that right?
I'd like a "second opinion" as it were on the leakiness of these caps. >>>What's the best old-school method for testing for this? I just want to >>>ensure the ESR meter isn't faulty (highly unlikely but the possibility >>>must be eliminated to be sure).
CD.
PS: the aforementioned caps are 47000uF 16V Vishay ones - and I have a >>>brand new spare that's also testing as "leaky"!
How leaky? You could apply 16 volts and measure current for a while.
It will typically taper off over some minutes or hours.
Well, the 'perfect cap' in series with an ammeter will cause an
initial surge of current which will taper off over time and eventually
settle at zero. But a leaky cap will continue to pass a small amount
of current, I would assume, indefinitely? Again, I would guess that a >real-world cap in good condition would continue to pass a tiny amount
of current - a negligible amount?
On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 23:50:08 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 15:16:12 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 22:41:09 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> >>>wrote:
On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 13:28:05 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> >>>>wrote:
On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 18:03:51 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> >>>>>wrote:
Hi all,
Using my Peak ESR/Capacitance meter, I was carrying out in-circuit >>>>>>checks on large electros in the linear PSU I've previously mentioned >>>>>>here. I was getting a lot of "in-circuit/leaky" warnings for two of >>>>>>them, so I pulled them out completely and am getting the same warning >>>>>>when they're checked out of circuit, which surprised me as it's >>>>>>unusual IME. Anyway, the leak would have to be very bad to result in >>>>>>ripple, would it not? AFAIK, the leading culprit for ripple is caps >>>>>>which have lost a significant amount of capacitance or else developed >>>>>>a very large ESR. Do I have that right?
I'd like a "second opinion" as it were on the leakiness of these caps. >>>>>>What's the best old-school method for testing for this? I just want to >>>>>>ensure the ESR meter isn't faulty (highly unlikely but the possibility >>>>>>must be eliminated to be sure).
CD.
PS: the aforementioned caps are 47000uF 16V Vishay ones - and I have a >>>>>>brand new spare that's also testing as "leaky"!
How leaky? You could apply 16 volts and measure current for a while. >>>>>It will typically taper off over some minutes or hours.
Well, the 'perfect cap' in series with an ammeter will cause an
initial surge of current which will taper off over time and eventually >>>>settle at zero. But a leaky cap will continue to pass a small amount
of current, I would assume, indefinitely? Again, I would guess that a >>>>real-world cap in good condition would continue to pass a tiny amount >>>>of current - a negligible amount?
An electrolytic is hardly a perfect cap. After the theoretical cap >>>charge, you might see some mA of leakage, tapering off to uA's after
some minutes or hours.
If the current ever increases, as it will at some voltage above rated, >>>it's probably on its way to destruction.
Get a power supply and an ammeter and experiment. Your capmeter is >>>obviously not telling you much.
Just spotted the meter only covers up to 22,000uF!
we
I don't trust C or L meters, especially for large C or L values, or
cheap meters.
On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 15:16:12 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 22:41:09 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> >>wrote:
On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 13:28:05 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> >>>wrote:
On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 18:03:51 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> >>>>wrote:
Hi all,
Using my Peak ESR/Capacitance meter, I was carrying out in-circuit >>>>>checks on large electros in the linear PSU I've previously mentioned >>>>>here. I was getting a lot of "in-circuit/leaky" warnings for two of >>>>>them, so I pulled them out completely and am getting the same warning >>>>>when they're checked out of circuit, which surprised me as it's >>>>>unusual IME. Anyway, the leak would have to be very bad to result in >>>>>ripple, would it not? AFAIK, the leading culprit for ripple is caps >>>>>which have lost a significant amount of capacitance or else developed >>>>>a very large ESR. Do I have that right?
I'd like a "second opinion" as it were on the leakiness of these caps. >>>>>What's the best old-school method for testing for this? I just want to >>>>>ensure the ESR meter isn't faulty (highly unlikely but the possibility >>>>>must be eliminated to be sure).
CD.
PS: the aforementioned caps are 47000uF 16V Vishay ones - and I have a >>>>>brand new spare that's also testing as "leaky"!
How leaky? You could apply 16 volts and measure current for a while.
It will typically taper off over some minutes or hours.
Well, the 'perfect cap' in series with an ammeter will cause an
initial surge of current which will taper off over time and eventually >>>settle at zero. But a leaky cap will continue to pass a small amount
of current, I would assume, indefinitely? Again, I would guess that a >>>real-world cap in good condition would continue to pass a tiny amount
of current - a negligible amount?
An electrolytic is hardly a perfect cap. After the theoretical cap
charge, you might see some mA of leakage, tapering off to uA's after
some minutes or hours.
If the current ever increases, as it will at some voltage above rated,
it's probably on its way to destruction.
Get a power supply and an ammeter and experiment. Your capmeter is >>obviously not telling you much.
Just spotted the meter only covers up to 22,000uF!
we
On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 16:22:12 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 23:50:08 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> >>wrote:
On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 15:16:12 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> >>>wrote:
On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 22:41:09 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> >>>>wrote:
On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 13:28:05 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> >>>>>wrote:
On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 18:03:51 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> >>>>>>wrote:
Hi all,
Using my Peak ESR/Capacitance meter, I was carrying out in-circuit >>>>>>>checks on large electros in the linear PSU I've previously mentioned >>>>>>>here. I was getting a lot of "in-circuit/leaky" warnings for two of >>>>>>>them, so I pulled them out completely and am getting the same warning >>>>>>>when they're checked out of circuit, which surprised me as it's >>>>>>>unusual IME. Anyway, the leak would have to be very bad to result in >>>>>>>ripple, would it not? AFAIK, the leading culprit for ripple is caps >>>>>>>which have lost a significant amount of capacitance or else developed >>>>>>>a very large ESR. Do I have that right?
I'd like a "second opinion" as it were on the leakiness of these caps. >>>>>>>What's the best old-school method for testing for this? I just want to >>>>>>>ensure the ESR meter isn't faulty (highly unlikely but the possibility >>>>>>>must be eliminated to be sure).
CD.
PS: the aforementioned caps are 47000uF 16V Vishay ones - and I have a >>>>>>>brand new spare that's also testing as "leaky"!
How leaky? You could apply 16 volts and measure current for a while. >>>>>>It will typically taper off over some minutes or hours.
Well, the 'perfect cap' in series with an ammeter will cause an >>>>>initial surge of current which will taper off over time and eventually >>>>>settle at zero. But a leaky cap will continue to pass a small amount >>>>>of current, I would assume, indefinitely? Again, I would guess that a >>>>>real-world cap in good condition would continue to pass a tiny amount >>>>>of current - a negligible amount?
An electrolytic is hardly a perfect cap. After the theoretical cap >>>>charge, you might see some mA of leakage, tapering off to uA's after >>>>some minutes or hours.
If the current ever increases, as it will at some voltage above rated, >>>>it's probably on its way to destruction.
Get a power supply and an ammeter and experiment. Your capmeter is >>>>obviously not telling you much.
Just spotted the meter only covers up to 22,000uF!
we
I don't trust C or L meters, especially for large C or L values, or
cheap meters.
How would you test for leakage, then?
Those Peak meters aren't cheap
and they've never let me down before. I suppose technically this one
hasn't let me down either since I was attempting an out-of-range
measurement. Perhaps the later models have expanded ranges; I'll have
to check....
I don't trust C or L meters, especially for large C or L values, or
cheap meters.
How would you test for leakage, then? Those Peak meters aren't cheap
and they've never let me down before. I suppose technically this one
hasn't let me down either since I was attempting an out-of-range
measurement. Perhaps the later models have expanded ranges; I'll have
to check....
Hi all,
Using my Peak ESR/Capacitance meter, I was carrying out in-circuit
checks on large electros in the linear PSU I've previously mentioned
here. I was getting a lot of "in-circuit/leaky" warnings for two of
them, so I pulled them out completely and am getting the same warning
when they're checked out of circuit, which surprised me as it's
unusual IME. Anyway, the leak would have to be very bad to result in
ripple, would it not? AFAIK, the leading culprit for ripple is caps
which have lost a significant amount of capacitance or else developed
a very large ESR. Do I have that right?
I'd like a "second opinion" as it were on the leakiness of these caps.
What's the best old-school method for testing for this? I just want to
ensure the ESR meter isn't faulty (highly unlikely but the possibility
must be eliminated to be sure).
On Mon, 04 Mar 2024 00:31:27 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 16:22:12 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 23:50:08 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> >>>wrote:
On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 15:16:12 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> >>>>wrote:
On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 22:41:09 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> >>>>>wrote:
On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 13:28:05 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> >>>>>>wrote:
On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 18:03:51 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> >>>>>>>wrote:
Hi all,
Using my Peak ESR/Capacitance meter, I was carrying out in-circuit >>>>>>>>checks on large electros in the linear PSU I've previously mentioned >>>>>>>>here. I was getting a lot of "in-circuit/leaky" warnings for two of >>>>>>>>them, so I pulled them out completely and am getting the same warning >>>>>>>>when they're checked out of circuit, which surprised me as it's >>>>>>>>unusual IME. Anyway, the leak would have to be very bad to result in >>>>>>>>ripple, would it not? AFAIK, the leading culprit for ripple is caps >>>>>>>>which have lost a significant amount of capacitance or else developed >>>>>>>>a very large ESR. Do I have that right?
I'd like a "second opinion" as it were on the leakiness of these caps. >>>>>>>>What's the best old-school method for testing for this? I just want to >>>>>>>>ensure the ESR meter isn't faulty (highly unlikely but the possibility >>>>>>>>must be eliminated to be sure).
CD.
PS: the aforementioned caps are 47000uF 16V Vishay ones - and I have a >>>>>>>>brand new spare that's also testing as "leaky"!
How leaky? You could apply 16 volts and measure current for a while. >>>>>>>It will typically taper off over some minutes or hours.
Well, the 'perfect cap' in series with an ammeter will cause an >>>>>>initial surge of current which will taper off over time and eventually >>>>>>settle at zero. But a leaky cap will continue to pass a small amount >>>>>>of current, I would assume, indefinitely? Again, I would guess that a >>>>>>real-world cap in good condition would continue to pass a tiny amount >>>>>>of current - a negligible amount?
An electrolytic is hardly a perfect cap. After the theoretical cap >>>>>charge, you might see some mA of leakage, tapering off to uA's after >>>>>some minutes or hours.
If the current ever increases, as it will at some voltage above rated, >>>>>it's probably on its way to destruction.
Get a power supply and an ammeter and experiment. Your capmeter is >>>>>obviously not telling you much.
Just spotted the meter only covers up to 22,000uF!
we
I don't trust C or L meters, especially for large C or L values, or
cheap meters.
How would you test for leakage, then?
Power supply and DVM.
Those Peak meters aren't cheap
and they've never let me down before. I suppose technically this one
hasn't let me down either since I was attempting an out-of-range >>measurement. Perhaps the later models have expanded ranges; I'll have
to check....
On 4/03/2024 5:03 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
Hi all,
Using my Peak ESR/Capacitance meter, I was carrying out in-circuit
checks on large electros in the linear PSU I've previously mentioned
here. I was getting a lot of "in-circuit/leaky" warnings for two of
them, so I pulled them out completely and am getting the same warning
when they're checked out of circuit, which surprised me as it's
unusual IME. Anyway, the leak would have to be very bad to result in
ripple, would it not? AFAIK, the leading culprit for ripple is caps
which have lost a significant amount of capacitance or else developed
a very large ESR. Do I have that right?
What you have wrong is the imagined association between leakage and ripple.
The "ripple" on the voltage across a capacitor reflects the charge that
is being taken out of and fed into the capacitor over the mains cycle.
More capacitance means smaller ripple.
Leakage is just the current flowing through the oxide layer on top of
metal conductor surfaces inside the electrolytic capacitor. If the
capacitor has been un-used for a long time, some of the oxide layer may
have diffused away, making the capacitance and the leakage current
higher. Applying the working voltage will re-form the oxide layer by
making it a bit thicker.
I'd like a "second opinion" as it were on the leakiness of these caps.
What's the best old-school method for testing for this? I just want to
ensure the ESR meter isn't faulty (highly unlikely but the possibility
must be eliminated to be sure).
If an electrolytic capacitor hasn't been used for some time, it's going
to be leaky. If you want to measure how leaky, measure the direct
current flowing through the capacitor as you increase the bias voltage
across it. It should drop as the oxide layer re-forms, perhaps over hours.
On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 15:29:02 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 4/03/2024 5:03 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
Hi all,
Using my Peak ESR/Capacitance meter, I was carrying out in-circuit
checks on large electros in the linear PSU I've previously mentioned
here. I was getting a lot of "in-circuit/leaky" warnings for two of
them, so I pulled them out completely and am getting the same warning
when they're checked out of circuit, which surprised me as it's
unusual IME. Anyway, the leak would have to be very bad to result in
ripple, would it not? AFAIK, the leading culprit for ripple is caps
which have lost a significant amount of capacitance or else developed
a very large ESR. Do I have that right?
What you have wrong is the imagined association between leakage and ripple.
Eh? I did say leakage was probably about the least likely cause of
ripple!
On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 18:28:46 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 04 Mar 2024 00:31:27 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> >>wrote:
On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 16:22:12 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> >>>wrote:
On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 23:50:08 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> >>>>wrote:
On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 15:16:12 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> >>>>>wrote:
On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 22:41:09 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> >>>>>>wrote:
On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 13:28:05 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> >>>>>>>wrote:
On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 18:03:51 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> >>>>>>>>wrote:
Hi all,
Using my Peak ESR/Capacitance meter, I was carrying out in-circuit >>>>>>>>>checks on large electros in the linear PSU I've previously mentioned >>>>>>>>>here. I was getting a lot of "in-circuit/leaky" warnings for two of >>>>>>>>>them, so I pulled them out completely and am getting the same warning >>>>>>>>>when they're checked out of circuit, which surprised me as it's >>>>>>>>>unusual IME. Anyway, the leak would have to be very bad to result in >>>>>>>>>ripple, would it not? AFAIK, the leading culprit for ripple is caps >>>>>>>>>which have lost a significant amount of capacitance or else developed >>>>>>>>>a very large ESR. Do I have that right?
I'd like a "second opinion" as it were on the leakiness of these caps. >>>>>>>>>What's the best old-school method for testing for this? I just want to >>>>>>>>>ensure the ESR meter isn't faulty (highly unlikely but the possibility >>>>>>>>>must be eliminated to be sure).
CD.
PS: the aforementioned caps are 47000uF 16V Vishay ones - and I have a >>>>>>>>>brand new spare that's also testing as "leaky"!
How leaky? You could apply 16 volts and measure current for a while. >>>>>>>>It will typically taper off over some minutes or hours.
Well, the 'perfect cap' in series with an ammeter will cause an >>>>>>>initial surge of current which will taper off over time and eventually >>>>>>>settle at zero. But a leaky cap will continue to pass a small amount >>>>>>>of current, I would assume, indefinitely? Again, I would guess that a >>>>>>>real-world cap in good condition would continue to pass a tiny amount >>>>>>>of current - a negligible amount?
An electrolytic is hardly a perfect cap. After the theoretical cap >>>>>>charge, you might see some mA of leakage, tapering off to uA's after >>>>>>some minutes or hours.
If the current ever increases, as it will at some voltage above rated, >>>>>>it's probably on its way to destruction.
Get a power supply and an ammeter and experiment. Your capmeter is >>>>>>obviously not telling you much.
Just spotted the meter only covers up to 22,000uF!
we
I don't trust C or L meters, especially for large C or L values, or >>>>cheap meters.
How would you test for leakage, then?
Power supply and DVM.
But then how do you determine - given that electrolytics come in all
sorts of votlage and temperature ratings, capacitance values etc - how
much leakage current in each case is "too much" leakage current
rendering the cap unsuitable for use?
Those Peak meters aren't cheap
and they've never let me down before. I suppose technically this one >>>hasn't let me down either since I was attempting an out-of-range >>>measurement. Perhaps the later models have expanded ranges; I'll have
to check....
Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:
[...]
But then how do you determine - given that electrolytics come in all
sorts of votlage and temperature ratings, capacitance values etc - how
much leakage current in each case is "too much" leakage current
rendering the cap unsuitable for use?
According to the Post Office Elelctrical Engineers' Journal (July 1962
p120) the leakage should be less than 5,000 ohm-farads for electrolytic >capacitors to be accepted for use in undersea cable repeaters. If your >capacitor is 47,000 microfarads (0.047F), that leakage current would be >equivalent to about 100k i.e. 0.1 milliamps at 10v.
For general domestic use, leakage figures at least 10 times greater than
that are usually acceptable.
On Mon, 04 Mar 2024 15:50:21 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 15:29:02 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>wrote:
On 4/03/2024 5:03 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:Eh? I did say leakage was probably about the least likely cause of
Hi all,
Using my Peak ESR/Capacitance meter, I was carrying out in-circuit
checks on large electros in the linear PSU I've previously mentioned
here. I was getting a lot of "in-circuit/leaky" warnings for two of
them, so I pulled them out completely and am getting the same warning
when they're checked out of circuit, which surprised me as it's
unusual IME. Anyway, the leak would have to be very bad to result in
ripple, would it not? AFAIK, the leading culprit for ripple is caps
which have lost a significant amount of capacitance or else developed
a very large ESR. Do I have that right?
What you have wrong is the imagined association between leakage and ripple. >>
ripple!
Don't argue. Sloman is always right and everyone else is always wrong
and stupid.
On Mon, 04 Mar 2024 15:55:53 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 18:28:46 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 04 Mar 2024 00:31:27 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> >>>wrote:
On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 16:22:12 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> >>>>wrote:
On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 23:50:08 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> >>>>>wrote:
On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 15:16:12 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> >>>>>>wrote:
On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 22:41:09 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> >>>>>>>wrote:
On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 13:28:05 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> >>>>>>>>wrote:
On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 18:03:51 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> >>>>>>>>>wrote:
Hi all,
Using my Peak ESR/Capacitance meter, I was carrying out in-circuit >>>>>>>>>>checks on large electros in the linear PSU I've previously mentioned >>>>>>>>>>here. I was getting a lot of "in-circuit/leaky" warnings for two of >>>>>>>>>>them, so I pulled them out completely and am getting the same warning >>>>>>>>>>when they're checked out of circuit, which surprised me as it's >>>>>>>>>>unusual IME. Anyway, the leak would have to be very bad to result in >>>>>>>>>>ripple, would it not? AFAIK, the leading culprit for ripple is caps >>>>>>>>>>which have lost a significant amount of capacitance or else developed >>>>>>>>>>a very large ESR. Do I have that right?
I'd like a "second opinion" as it were on the leakiness of these caps.
What's the best old-school method for testing for this? I just want to
ensure the ESR meter isn't faulty (highly unlikely but the possibility
must be eliminated to be sure).
CD.
PS: the aforementioned caps are 47000uF 16V Vishay ones - and I have a
brand new spare that's also testing as "leaky"!
How leaky? You could apply 16 volts and measure current for a while. >>>>>>>>>It will typically taper off over some minutes or hours.
Well, the 'perfect cap' in series with an ammeter will cause an >>>>>>>>initial surge of current which will taper off over time and eventually >>>>>>>>settle at zero. But a leaky cap will continue to pass a small amount >>>>>>>>of current, I would assume, indefinitely? Again, I would guess that a >>>>>>>>real-world cap in good condition would continue to pass a tiny amount >>>>>>>>of current - a negligible amount?
An electrolytic is hardly a perfect cap. After the theoretical cap >>>>>>>charge, you might see some mA of leakage, tapering off to uA's after >>>>>>>some minutes or hours.
If the current ever increases, as it will at some voltage above rated, >>>>>>>it's probably on its way to destruction.
Get a power supply and an ammeter and experiment. Your capmeter is >>>>>>>obviously not telling you much.
Just spotted the meter only covers up to 22,000uF!
we
I don't trust C or L meters, especially for large C or L values, or >>>>>cheap meters.
How would you test for leakage, then?
Power supply and DVM.
But then how do you determine - given that electrolytics come in all
sorts of votlage and temperature ratings, capacitance values etc - how
much leakage current in each case is "too much" leakage current
rendering the cap unsuitable for use?
That's for you to decide. No instrument is going to have red and green
LEDs to tell you if a cap is suitable for your circuit.
Gross capacitance
C vs voltage
C vs temperature
Leakage vs temperature and voltage, both polarities
Dielectric absorption
Failure voltage or current
ESR vs temperature
ESL
Lifetime
Power dissipation/cooling
Solderability/washability
One should measure or calculate whichever of those might matter in
your circuit.
Post your circuit and we can talk about it.
On Mon, 04 Mar 2024 09:16:53 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 04 Mar 2024 15:55:53 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> >>wrote:
On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 18:28:46 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> >>>wrote:
On Mon, 04 Mar 2024 00:31:27 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> >>>>wrote:
On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 16:22:12 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> >>>>>wrote:
On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 23:50:08 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> >>>>>>wrote:
On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 15:16:12 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> >>>>>>>wrote:
On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 22:41:09 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> >>>>>>>>wrote:
On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 13:28:05 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> >>>>>>>>>wrote:
On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 18:03:51 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> >>>>>>>>>>wrote:
Hi all,
Using my Peak ESR/Capacitance meter, I was carrying out in-circuit >>>>>>>>>>>checks on large electros in the linear PSU I've previously mentioned >>>>>>>>>>>here. I was getting a lot of "in-circuit/leaky" warnings for two of >>>>>>>>>>>them, so I pulled them out completely and am getting the same warning
when they're checked out of circuit, which surprised me as it's >>>>>>>>>>>unusual IME. Anyway, the leak would have to be very bad to result in >>>>>>>>>>>ripple, would it not? AFAIK, the leading culprit for ripple is caps >>>>>>>>>>>which have lost a significant amount of capacitance or else developed
a very large ESR. Do I have that right?
I'd like a "second opinion" as it were on the leakiness of these caps.
What's the best old-school method for testing for this? I just want to
ensure the ESR meter isn't faulty (highly unlikely but the possibility
must be eliminated to be sure).
CD.
PS: the aforementioned caps are 47000uF 16V Vishay ones - and I have a
brand new spare that's also testing as "leaky"!
How leaky? You could apply 16 volts and measure current for a while. >>>>>>>>>>It will typically taper off over some minutes or hours.
Well, the 'perfect cap' in series with an ammeter will cause an >>>>>>>>>initial surge of current which will taper off over time and eventually >>>>>>>>>settle at zero. But a leaky cap will continue to pass a small amount >>>>>>>>>of current, I would assume, indefinitely? Again, I would guess that a >>>>>>>>>real-world cap in good condition would continue to pass a tiny amount >>>>>>>>>of current - a negligible amount?
An electrolytic is hardly a perfect cap. After the theoretical cap >>>>>>>>charge, you might see some mA of leakage, tapering off to uA's after >>>>>>>>some minutes or hours.
If the current ever increases, as it will at some voltage above rated, >>>>>>>>it's probably on its way to destruction.
Get a power supply and an ammeter and experiment. Your capmeter is >>>>>>>>obviously not telling you much.
Just spotted the meter only covers up to 22,000uF!
we
I don't trust C or L meters, especially for large C or L values, or >>>>>>cheap meters.
How would you test for leakage, then?
Power supply and DVM.
But then how do you determine - given that electrolytics come in all >>>sorts of votlage and temperature ratings, capacitance values etc - how >>>much leakage current in each case is "too much" leakage current
rendering the cap unsuitable for use?
That's for you to decide. No instrument is going to have red and green
LEDs to tell you if a cap is suitable for your circuit.
That's not how cap testers work, though. They take virtually none of
the following into account:-
Gross capacitance
C vs voltage
C vs temperature
Leakage vs temperature and voltage, both polarities
Dielectric absorption
Failure voltage or current
ESR vs temperature
ESL
Lifetime
Power dissipation/cooling
Solderability/washability
One should measure or calculate whichever of those might matter in
your circuit.
Post your circuit and we can talk about it.
No circuit involved. The question relates to generic smoothing caps of
linear power supplies.
On Mon, 04 Mar 2024 09:20:12 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 04 Mar 2024 15:50:21 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 15:29:02 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 4/03/2024 5:03 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
Hi all,
Using my Peak ESR/Capacitance meter, I was carrying out in-circuit
checks on large electros in the linear PSU I've previously mentioned >>>>> here. I was getting a lot of "in-circuit/leaky" warnings for two of
them, so I pulled them out completely and am getting the same warning >>>>> when they're checked out of circuit, which surprised me as it's
unusual IME. Anyway, the leak would have to be very bad to result in >>>>> ripple, would it not? AFAIK, the leading culprit for ripple is caps
which have lost a significant amount of capacitance or else developed >>>>> a very large ESR. Do I have that right?
What you have wrong is the imagined association between leakage and ripple.
Eh? I did say leakage was probably about the least likely cause of
ripple!
Don't argue. Sloman is always right and everyone else is always wrong
and stupid.
Much of that can be accounted for by the fact that Bill doesn't bother reading others' comments in their entirety. He goes off 'half-cock'
and makes an ass of himself. That doesn't say much for his claims to
be a scientist.
On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 18:28:46 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> wrote:
On Mon, 04 Mar 2024 00:31:27 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote: >>> On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 16:22:12 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> wrote: >>>> On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 23:50:08 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 15:16:12 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> wrote:
On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 22:41:09 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 13:28:05 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> wrote:
On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 18:03:51 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:
But then how do you determine - given that electrolytics come in all
sorts of votlage and temperature ratings, capacitance values etc - how
much leakage current in each case is "too much" leakage current
rendering the cap unsuitable for use?
On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 15:29:02 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 4/03/2024 5:03 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
Hi all,
Using my Peak ESR/Capacitance meter, I was carrying out in-circuit
checks on large electros in the linear PSU I've previously mentioned
here. I was getting a lot of "in-circuit/leaky" warnings for two of
them, so I pulled them out completely and am getting the same warning
when they're checked out of circuit, which surprised me as it's
unusual IME. Anyway, the leak would have to be very bad to result in
ripple, would it not? AFAIK, the leading culprit for ripple is caps
which have lost a significant amount of capacitance or else developed
a very large ESR. Do I have that right?
What you have wrong is the imagined association between leakage and ripple.
Eh? I did say leakage was probably about the least likely cause of
ripple!
The "ripple" on the voltage across a capacitor reflects the charge that
is being taken out of and fed into the capacitor over the mains cycle.
More capacitance means smaller ripple.
Leakage is just the current flowing through the oxide layer on top of
metal conductor surfaces inside the electrolytic capacitor. If the
capacitor has been un-used for a long time, some of the oxide layer may
have diffused away, making the capacitance and the leakage current
higher. Applying the working voltage will re-form the oxide layer by
making it a bit thicker.
I'd like a "second opinion" as it were on the leakiness of these caps.
What's the best old-school method for testing for this? I just want to
ensure the ESR meter isn't faulty (highly unlikely but the possibility
must be eliminated to be sure).
If an electrolytic capacitor hasn't been used for some time, it's going
to be leaky. If you want to measure how leaky, measure the direct
current flowing through the capacitor as you increase the bias voltage
across it. It should drop as the oxide layer re-forms, perhaps over hours.
On 5/03/2024 2:50 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 15:29:02 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 4/03/2024 5:03 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:Eh? I did say leakage was probably about the least likely cause of
Hi all,
Using my Peak ESR/Capacitance meter, I was carrying out in-circuit
checks on large electros in the linear PSU I've previously mentioned
here. I was getting a lot of "in-circuit/leaky" warnings for two of
them, so I pulled them out completely and am getting the same warning
when they're checked out of circuit, which surprised me as it's
unusual IME. Anyway, the leak would have to be very bad to result in
ripple, would it not? AFAIK, the leading culprit for ripple is caps
which have lost a significant amount of capacitance or else developed
a very large ESR. Do I have that right?
What you have wrong is the imagined association between leakage and ripple. >>
ripple!
The error comes from imagining that the two were connected.
The "ripple" on the voltage across a capacitor reflects the charge that
is being taken out of and fed into the capacitor over the mains cycle.
More capacitance means smaller ripple.
Leakage is just the current flowing through the oxide layer on top of
metal conductor surfaces inside the electrolytic capacitor. If the
capacitor has been un-used for a long time, some of the oxide layer may
have diffused away, making the capacitance and the leakage current
higher. Applying the working voltage will re-form the oxide layer by
making it a bit thicker.
I'd like a "second opinion" as it were on the leakiness of these caps. >>>> What's the best old-school method for testing for this? I just want to >>>> ensure the ESR meter isn't faulty (highly unlikely but the possibility >>>> must be eliminated to be sure).
If an electrolytic capacitor hasn't been used for some time, it's going
to be leaky. If you want to measure how leaky, measure the direct
current flowing through the capacitor as you increase the bias voltage
across it. It should drop as the oxide layer re-forms, perhaps over hours.
This might have been the information you needed, if you knew enough to >process it. The placement of your response suggests that you don't.
On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 12:52:04 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 5/03/2024 2:50 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 15:29:02 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 4/03/2024 5:03 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
This might have been the information you needed, if you knew enough to
process it. The placement of your response suggests that you don't.
Your remarks were so trite they didn't bear a response. Everyone here
knows electrolytic caps need to be re-formed if they've been unused
for any significant length of time.
It's vintage scope repair 101 and even you must be aware restoring vintage scopes is my prime interest
in the subject. God knows I've posted enough about it over the years!
On Mon, 04 Mar 2024 23:03:05 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 04 Mar 2024 09:16:53 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 04 Mar 2024 15:55:53 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> >>>wrote:
On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 18:28:46 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> >>>>wrote:
On Mon, 04 Mar 2024 00:31:27 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> >>>>>wrote:
On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 16:22:12 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> >>>>>>wrote:
On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 23:50:08 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> >>>>>>>wrote:
On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 15:16:12 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> >>>>>>>>wrote:
On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 22:41:09 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> >>>>>>>>>wrote:
On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 13:28:05 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> >>>>>>>>>>wrote:
On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 18:03:51 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
wrote:
Hi all,
Using my Peak ESR/Capacitance meter, I was carrying out in-circuit >>>>>>>>>>>>checks on large electros in the linear PSU I've previously mentioned
here. I was getting a lot of "in-circuit/leaky" warnings for two of >>>>>>>>>>>>them, so I pulled them out completely and am getting the same warning
when they're checked out of circuit, which surprised me as it's >>>>>>>>>>>>unusual IME. Anyway, the leak would have to be very bad to result in
ripple, would it not? AFAIK, the leading culprit for ripple is caps >>>>>>>>>>>>which have lost a significant amount of capacitance or else developed
a very large ESR. Do I have that right?
I'd like a "second opinion" as it were on the leakiness of these caps.
What's the best old-school method for testing for this? I just want to
ensure the ESR meter isn't faulty (highly unlikely but the possibility
must be eliminated to be sure).
CD.
PS: the aforementioned caps are 47000uF 16V Vishay ones - and I have a
brand new spare that's also testing as "leaky"!
How leaky? You could apply 16 volts and measure current for a while. >>>>>>>>>>>It will typically taper off over some minutes or hours.
Well, the 'perfect cap' in series with an ammeter will cause an >>>>>>>>>>initial surge of current which will taper off over time and eventually
settle at zero. But a leaky cap will continue to pass a small amount >>>>>>>>>>of current, I would assume, indefinitely? Again, I would guess that a >>>>>>>>>>real-world cap in good condition would continue to pass a tiny amount >>>>>>>>>>of current - a negligible amount?
An electrolytic is hardly a perfect cap. After the theoretical cap >>>>>>>>>charge, you might see some mA of leakage, tapering off to uA's after >>>>>>>>>some minutes or hours.
If the current ever increases, as it will at some voltage above rated, >>>>>>>>>it's probably on its way to destruction.
Get a power supply and an ammeter and experiment. Your capmeter is >>>>>>>>>obviously not telling you much.
Just spotted the meter only covers up to 22,000uF!
we
I don't trust C or L meters, especially for large C or L values, or >>>>>>>cheap meters.
How would you test for leakage, then?
Power supply and DVM.
But then how do you determine - given that electrolytics come in all >>>>sorts of votlage and temperature ratings, capacitance values etc - how >>>>much leakage current in each case is "too much" leakage current >>>>rendering the cap unsuitable for use?
That's for you to decide. No instrument is going to have red and green >>>LEDs to tell you if a cap is suitable for your circuit.
That's not how cap testers work, though. They take virtually none of
the following into account:-
Gross capacitance
C vs voltage
C vs temperature
Leakage vs temperature and voltage, both polarities
Dielectric absorption
Failure voltage or current
ESR vs temperature
ESL
Lifetime
Power dissipation/cooling
Solderability/washability
One should measure or calculate whichever of those might matter in
your circuit.
Post your circuit and we can talk about it.
No circuit involved. The question relates to generic smoothing caps of >>linear power supplies.
Where in a circuit is a "smoothing" cap? Oops, sorry, there is no
circuit.
On Mon, 04 Mar 2024 16:41:40 -0800, john larkin <jl@650pot.com> wrote:
On Mon, 04 Mar 2024 23:03:05 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 04 Mar 2024 09:16:53 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 04 Mar 2024 15:55:53 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 18:28:46 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 04 Mar 2024 00:31:27 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> >>>>>> wrote:
On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 16:22:12 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 23:50:08 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 15:16:12 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 22:41:09 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 13:28:05 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 18:03:51 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>Well, the 'perfect cap' in series with an ammeter will cause an >>>>>>>>>>> initial surge of current which will taper off over time and eventually
wrote:
Hi all,
Using my Peak ESR/Capacitance meter, I was carrying out in-circuit
checks on large electros in the linear PSU I've previously mentioned
here. I was getting a lot of "in-circuit/leaky" warnings for two of
them, so I pulled them out completely and am getting the same warning
when they're checked out of circuit, which surprised me as it's >>>>>>>>>>>>> unusual IME. Anyway, the leak would have to be very bad to result in
ripple, would it not? AFAIK, the leading culprit for ripple is caps
which have lost a significant amount of capacitance or else developed
a very large ESR. Do I have that right?
I'd like a "second opinion" as it were on the leakiness of these caps.
What's the best old-school method for testing for this? I just want to
ensure the ESR meter isn't faulty (highly unlikely but the possibility
must be eliminated to be sure).
CD.
PS: the aforementioned caps are 47000uF 16V Vishay ones - and I have a
brand new spare that's also testing as "leaky"!
How leaky? You could apply 16 volts and measure current for a while.
It will typically taper off over some minutes or hours. >>>>>>>>>>>
settle at zero. But a leaky cap will continue to pass a small amount
of current, I would assume, indefinitely? Again, I would guess that a
real-world cap in good condition would continue to pass a tiny amount
of current - a negligible amount?
An electrolytic is hardly a perfect cap. After the theoretical cap >>>>>>>>>> charge, you might see some mA of leakage, tapering off to uA's after >>>>>>>>>> some minutes or hours.
If the current ever increases, as it will at some voltage above rated,
it's probably on its way to destruction.
Get a power supply and an ammeter and experiment. Your capmeter is >>>>>>>>>> obviously not telling you much.
Just spotted the meter only covers up to 22,000uF!
we
I don't trust C or L meters, especially for large C or L values, or >>>>>>>> cheap meters.
How would you test for leakage, then?
Power supply and DVM.
But then how do you determine - given that electrolytics come in all >>>>> sorts of votlage and temperature ratings, capacitance values etc - how >>>>> much leakage current in each case is "too much" leakage current
rendering the cap unsuitable for use?
That's for you to decide. No instrument is going to have red and green >>>> LEDs to tell you if a cap is suitable for your circuit.
That's not how cap testers work, though. They take virtually none of
the following into account:-
Gross capacitance
C vs voltage
C vs temperature
Leakage vs temperature and voltage, both polarities
Dielectric absorption
Failure voltage or current
ESR vs temperature
ESL
Lifetime
Power dissipation/cooling
Solderability/washability
One should measure or calculate whichever of those might matter in
your circuit.
Post your circuit and we can talk about it.
No circuit involved. The question relates to generic smoothing caps of
linear power supplies.
Where in a circuit is a "smoothing" cap? Oops, sorry, there is no
circuit.
Yes, there's no circuit. Marconi/Aeroflex never published one and and
a lot of their designs are still under wraps. It's a real PITA.
On 5/03/2024 8:17 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Mon, 04 Mar 2024 16:41:40 -0800, john larkin <jl@650pot.com> wrote:
On Mon, 04 Mar 2024 23:03:05 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 04 Mar 2024 09:16:53 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 04 Mar 2024 15:55:53 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> >>>>> wrote:
On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 18:28:46 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> >>>>>> wrote:
On Mon, 04 Mar 2024 00:31:27 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 16:22:12 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 23:50:08 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 15:16:12 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 22:41:09 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 13:28:05 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 18:03:51 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>Well, the 'perfect cap' in series with an ammeter will cause an >>>>>>>>>>>> initial surge of current which will taper off over time and eventually
wrote:
Hi all,
Using my Peak ESR/Capacitance meter, I was carrying out in-circuit
checks on large electros in the linear PSU I've previously mentioned
here. I was getting a lot of "in-circuit/leaky" warnings for two of
them, so I pulled them out completely and am getting the same warning
when they're checked out of circuit, which surprised me as it's >>>>>>>>>>>>>> unusual IME. Anyway, the leak would have to be very bad to result in
ripple, would it not? AFAIK, the leading culprit for ripple is caps
which have lost a significant amount of capacitance or else developed
a very large ESR. Do I have that right?
I'd like a "second opinion" as it were on the leakiness of these caps.
What's the best old-school method for testing for this? I just want to
ensure the ESR meter isn't faulty (highly unlikely but the possibility
must be eliminated to be sure).
CD.
PS: the aforementioned caps are 47000uF 16V Vishay ones - and I have a
brand new spare that's also testing as "leaky"!
How leaky? You could apply 16 volts and measure current for a while.
It will typically taper off over some minutes or hours. >>>>>>>>>>>>
settle at zero. But a leaky cap will continue to pass a small amount
of current, I would assume, indefinitely? Again, I would guess that a
real-world cap in good condition would continue to pass a tiny amount
of current - a negligible amount?
An electrolytic is hardly a perfect cap. After the theoretical cap >>>>>>>>>>> charge, you might see some mA of leakage, tapering off to uA's after
some minutes or hours.
If the current ever increases, as it will at some voltage above rated,
it's probably on its way to destruction.
Get a power supply and an ammeter and experiment. Your capmeter is >>>>>>>>>>> obviously not telling you much.
Just spotted the meter only covers up to 22,000uF!
we
I don't trust C or L meters, especially for large C or L values, or >>>>>>>>> cheap meters.
How would you test for leakage, then?
Power supply and DVM.
But then how do you determine - given that electrolytics come in all >>>>>> sorts of votlage and temperature ratings, capacitance values etc - how >>>>>> much leakage current in each case is "too much" leakage current
rendering the cap unsuitable for use?
That's for you to decide. No instrument is going to have red and green >>>>> LEDs to tell you if a cap is suitable for your circuit.
That's not how cap testers work, though. They take virtually none of
the following into account:-
Gross capacitance
C vs voltage
C vs temperature
Leakage vs temperature and voltage, both polarities
Dielectric absorption
Failure voltage or current
ESR vs temperature
ESL
Lifetime
Power dissipation/cooling
Solderability/washability
One should measure or calculate whichever of those might matter in
your circuit.
Post your circuit and we can talk about it.
No circuit involved. The question relates to generic smoothing caps of >>>> linear power supplies.
Where in a circuit is a "smoothing" cap? Oops, sorry, there is no
circuit.
Yes, there's no circuit. Marconi/Aeroflex never published one and and
a lot of their designs are still under wraps. It's a real PITA.
If you are repairing the units, you should be able to trace that bit of
the circuit. It isn't going to be complicated.
On 5/03/2024 8:30 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 12:52:04 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote: >>> On 5/03/2024 2:50 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 15:29:02 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 4/03/2024 5:03 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
<snip>
This might have been the information you needed, if you knew enough to
process it. The placement of your response suggests that you don't.
Your remarks were so trite they didn't bear a response. Everyone here
knows electrolytic caps need to be re-formed if they've been unused
for any significant length of time.
But you didn't mention it in your original post, and clearly don't
appreciate what it is actually doing.
It's vintage scope repair 101 and even you must be aware restoring vintage scopes is my prime interest
in the subject. God knows I've posted enough about it over the years!
I'm sure you know about it as a ritual you have learned to perform. You >didn't actually comprehend what you were doing, any more than you did
when you acted out what you thought was researching the climate change >literature, and were actually performing a trawl through the unreliable
early results to cherry-pick those few results that suited your daft >hypothesis.
On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 20:58:49 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 5/03/2024 8:17 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Mon, 04 Mar 2024 16:41:40 -0800, john larkin <jl@650pot.com> wrote:
On Mon, 04 Mar 2024 23:03:05 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 04 Mar 2024 09:16:53 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> wrote:
On Mon, 04 Mar 2024 15:55:53 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 18:28:46 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> wrote:
On Mon, 04 Mar 2024 00:31:27 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 16:22:12 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> wrote:
On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 23:50:08 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 15:16:12 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> wrote:
On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 22:41:09 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 13:28:05 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> wrote:
On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 18:03:51 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:
Yes, there's no circuit. Marconi/Aeroflex never published one and and
a lot of their designs are still under wraps. It's a real PITA.
If you are repairing the units, you should be able to trace that bit of
the circuit. It isn't going to be complicated.
Ordinarily it would be a piece of cake, but they seem to have gone out
of their way to make access as difficult as possible.
On 5/03/2024 11:16 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 20:58:49 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote: >>> On 5/03/2024 8:17 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Mon, 04 Mar 2024 16:41:40 -0800, john larkin <jl@650pot.com> wrote: >>>>> On Mon, 04 Mar 2024 23:03:05 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 04 Mar 2024 09:16:53 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> wrote:
On Mon, 04 Mar 2024 15:55:53 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 18:28:46 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> wrote:
On Mon, 04 Mar 2024 00:31:27 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 16:22:12 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> wrote:
On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 23:50:08 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 15:16:12 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> wrote:
On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 22:41:09 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 13:28:05 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> wrote:
On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 18:03:51 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:
Yes, there's no circuit. Marconi/Aeroflex never published one and and
a lot of their designs are still under wraps. It's a real PITA.
If you are repairing the units, you should be able to trace that bit of
the circuit. It isn't going to be complicated.
Ordinarily it would be a piece of cake, but they seem to have gone out
of their way to make access as difficult as possible.
Really?
On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 20:56:01 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 5/03/2024 8:30 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 12:52:04 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 5/03/2024 2:50 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 15:29:02 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 4/03/2024 5:03 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
<snip>
This might have been the information you needed, if you knew enough to >>>> process it. The placement of your response suggests that you don't.
Your remarks were so trite they didn't bear a response. Everyone here
knows electrolytic caps need to be re-formed if they've been unused
for any significant length of time.
But you didn't mention it in your original post, and clearly don't
appreciate what it is actually doing.
Ah, that must be it. Over 60 years of hobby electronics and I never
knew that. Thanks for spoon-feeding me that vital tidbit, Bill. How
would we ever manage without you?
It's vintage scope repair 101 and even you must be aware restoring vintage scopes is my prime interest
in the subject. God knows I've posted enough about it over the years!
I'm sure you know about it as a ritual you have learned to perform. You
didn't actually comprehend what you were doing, any more than you did
when you acted out what you thought was researching the climate change
literature, and were actually performing a trawl through the unreliable
early results to cherry-pick those few results that suited your daft
hypothesis.
Sorry, Bill. I'm not biting today. You'll have to get a bit more
inventive if you want to suck me into another of your pointless
pissing contests.
On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 20:56:01 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>[...]
wrote:
I'm sure you know about it as a ritual you have learned to perform. You
didn't actually comprehend what you were doing, [...]
Sorry, Bill. I'm not biting today. You'll have to get a bit more
inventive if you want to suck me into another of your pointless
pissing contests.
On 5 Mar 2024 at 13:45:55 GMT, "Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 5/03/2024 11:21 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 20:56:01 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 5/03/2024 8:30 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 12:52:04 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 5/03/2024 2:50 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 15:29:02 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 4/03/2024 5:03 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
<snip>
This might have been the information you needed, if you knew enough to >>>>>> process it. The placement of your response suggests that you don't. >>>>>Your remarks were so trite they didn't bear a response. Everyone here >>>>> knows electrolytic caps need to be re-formed if they've been unused
for any significant length of time.
But you didn't mention it in your original post, and clearly don't
appreciate what it is actually doing.
Ah, that must be it. Over 60 years of hobby electronics and I never
knew that. Thanks for spoon-feeding me that vital tidbit, Bill. How
would we ever manage without you?
You don't manage all that well. The vital tit-bit of information came
from electrochemistry, which isn't covered in detail in hobby
electronics, but was part of my undergraduate chemistry course - John
Larkin's did at least first year chemistry too, but robablyu wasn't
paying attention to that bit of the course.
You mean there's a *syllabus* for hobby electronics?
On 5/03/2024 11:21 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 20:56:01 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 5/03/2024 8:30 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 12:52:04 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 5/03/2024 2:50 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 15:29:02 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 4/03/2024 5:03 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
<snip>
This might have been the information you needed, if you knew enough to >>>>> process it. The placement of your response suggests that you don't.
Your remarks were so trite they didn't bear a response. Everyone here
knows electrolytic caps need to be re-formed if they've been unused
for any significant length of time.
But you didn't mention it in your original post, and clearly don't
appreciate what it is actually doing.
Ah, that must be it. Over 60 years of hobby electronics and I never
knew that. Thanks for spoon-feeding me that vital tidbit, Bill. How
would we ever manage without you?
You don't manage all that well. The vital tit-bit of information came
from electrochemistry, which isn't covered in detail in hobby
electronics, but was part of my undergraduate chemistry course - John Larkin's did at least first year chemistry too, but robablyu wasn't
paying attention to that bit of the course.
On 3/5/24 13:21, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 20:56:01 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>[...]
wrote:
I'm sure you know about it as a ritual you have learned to perform. You
didn't actually comprehend what you were doing, [...]
Sorry, Bill. I'm not biting today. You'll have to get a bit more
inventive if you want to suck me into another of your pointless
pissing contests.
Would you please do us all the courtesy of ignoring him?
Jeroen Belleman
On 5 Mar 2024 at 13:45:55 GMT, "Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 5/03/2024 11:21 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 20:56:01 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 5/03/2024 8:30 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 12:52:04 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 5/03/2024 2:50 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 15:29:02 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 4/03/2024 5:03 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
<snip>
This might have been the information you needed, if you knew enough to >>>>>> process it. The placement of your response suggests that you don't. >>>>>Your remarks were so trite they didn't bear a response. Everyone here >>>>> knows electrolytic caps need to be re-formed if they've been unused
for any significant length of time.
But you didn't mention it in your original post, and clearly don't
appreciate what it is actually doing.
Ah, that must be it. Over 60 years of hobby electronics and I never
knew that. Thanks for spoon-feeding me that vital tidbit, Bill. How
would we ever manage without you?
You don't manage all that well. The vital tit-bit of information came
from electro-chemistry, which isn't covered in detail in hobby
electronics, but was part of my undergraduate chemistry course - John
Larkin's did at least first year chemistry too, but probably wasn't
paying attention to that bit of the course.
You mean there's a *syllabus* for hobby electronics?
On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 19:36:13 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 3/5/24 13:21, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 20:56:01 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>[...]
wrote:
I'm sure you know about it as a ritual you have learned to perform. You >>>> didn't actually comprehend what you were doing, [...]
Sorry, Bill. I'm not biting today. You'll have to get a bit more
inventive if you want to suck me into another of your pointless
pissing contests.
Would you please do us all the courtesy of ignoring him?
I'll try. I'll really try.
In sci.electronics.design Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 3/5/24 13:21, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 20:56:01 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>[...]
wrote:
I'm sure you know about it as a ritual you have learned to perform. You >>>> didn't actually comprehend what you were doing, [...]
Sorry, Bill. I'm not biting today. You'll have to get a bit more
inventive if you want to suck me into another of your pointless
pissing contests.
Would you please do us all the courtesy of ignoring him?
Yes, the classic example of the personality type that always has to
have the last word, Bill is.
So every time CD responds, required to respond in kind, Bill is, the
last word, in order to have.
To infinity unless CD stops responding first, this will continue.
On 5 Mar 2024 19:24:09 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 5 Mar 2024 at 13:45:55 GMT, "Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote: >>
On 5/03/2024 11:21 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 20:56:01 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 5/03/2024 8:30 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 12:52:04 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 5/03/2024 2:50 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 15:29:02 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 4/03/2024 5:03 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
<snip>
This might have been the information you needed, if you knew enough to >>>>>>> process it. The placement of your response suggests that you don't. >>>>>>Your remarks were so trite they didn't bear a response. Everyone here >>>>>> knows electrolytic caps need to be re-formed if they've been unused >>>>>> for any significant length of time.
But you didn't mention it in your original post, and clearly don't
appreciate what it is actually doing.
Ah, that must be it. Over 60 years of hobby electronics and I never
knew that. Thanks for spoon-feeding me that vital tidbit, Bill. How
would we ever manage without you?
You don't manage all that well. The vital tit-bit of information came
from electrochemistry, which isn't covered in detail in hobby
electronics, but was part of my undergraduate chemistry course - John
Larkin's did at least first year chemistry too, but robablyu wasn't
paying attention to that bit of the course.
You mean there's a *syllabus* for hobby electronics?
I seem to have missed the freshman chemistry classes about
electrolytic capacitors. I was probably out sailing or something.
On 6/03/2024 10:10 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 19:36:13 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 3/5/24 13:21, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 20:56:01 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>[...]
wrote:
I'm sure you know about it as a ritual you have learned to perform. You >>>>> didn't actually comprehend what you were doing, [...]
Sorry, Bill. I'm not biting today. You'll have to get a bit more
inventive if you want to suck me into another of your pointless
pissing contests.
Would you please do us all the courtesy of ignoring him?
I'll try. I'll really try.
And he will fail.
On 6/03/2024 6:24 am, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 5 Mar 2024 at 13:45:55 GMT, "Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote: >>
On 5/03/2024 11:21 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 20:56:01 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 5/03/2024 8:30 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 12:52:04 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 5/03/2024 2:50 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 15:29:02 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 4/03/2024 5:03 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
<snip>
This might have been the information you needed, if you knew enough to >>>>>>> process it. The placement of your response suggests that you don't. >>>>>>Your remarks were so trite they didn't bear a response. Everyone here >>>>>> knows electrolytic caps need to be re-formed if they've been unused >>>>>> for any significant length of time.
But you didn't mention it in your original post, and clearly don't
appreciate what it is actually doing.
Ah, that must be it. Over 60 years of hobby electronics and I never
knew that. Thanks for spoon-feeding me that vital tidbit, Bill. How
would we ever manage without you?
You don't manage all that well. The vital tit-bit of information came
from electro-chemistry, which isn't covered in detail in hobby
electronics, but was part of my undergraduate chemistry course - John
Larkin's did at least first year chemistry too, but probably wasn't
paying attention to that bit of the course.
You mean there's a *syllabus* for hobby electronics?
In the sense that you do have to learn stuff to be able be good enough
at it for it to be worth pursuing as a hobby. Cursitor Doom hasn't
learned all that much, and he resents having his short-comings pointed out.
On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 13:11:00 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 6/03/2024 6:24 am, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 5 Mar 2024 at 13:45:55 GMT, "Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote: >>>
On 5/03/2024 11:21 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 20:56:01 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>> wrote:
On 5/03/2024 8:30 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 12:52:04 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 5/03/2024 2:50 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 15:29:02 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 4/03/2024 5:03 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
<snip>
This might have been the information you needed, if you knew enough to >>>>>>>> process it. The placement of your response suggests that you don't. >>>>>>>Your remarks were so trite they didn't bear a response. Everyone here >>>>>>> knows electrolytic caps need to be re-formed if they've been unused >>>>>>> for any significant length of time.
But you didn't mention it in your original post, and clearly don't >>>>>> appreciate what it is actually doing.
Ah, that must be it. Over 60 years of hobby electronics and I never
knew that. Thanks for spoon-feeding me that vital tidbit, Bill. How
would we ever manage without you?
You don't manage all that well. The vital tit-bit of information came
from electro-chemistry, which isn't covered in detail in hobby
electronics, but was part of my undergraduate chemistry course - John
Larkin's did at least first year chemistry too, but probably wasn't
paying attention to that bit of the course.
You mean there's a *syllabus* for hobby electronics?
In the sense that you do have to learn stuff to be able be good enough
at it for it to be worth pursuing as a hobby. Cursitor Doom hasn't
learned all that much, and he resents having his short-comings pointed out.
I'm deeply honoured that you're making the exact same criticism of me
as you make of John Larkin, Bill. That's a hell of a compliment for me
as a mere hobbyist. Thanks!
On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 13:18:46 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 6/03/2024 10:10 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 19:36:13 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 3/5/24 13:21, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 20:56:01 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>> wrote:[...]
I'm sure you know about it as a ritual you have learned to perform. You >>>>>> didn't actually comprehend what you were doing, [...]
Sorry, Bill. I'm not biting today. You'll have to get a bit more
inventive if you want to suck me into another of your pointless
pissing contests.
Would you please do us all the courtesy of ignoring him?
I'll try. I'll really try.
And he will fail.
No Bill, I shall not. You think you can drag me back into your endless
and pointless to-and-fro exchanges by misrepresenting my research and >attempting to undermine it. And I'm jolly well not falling for it.
On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 13:18:46 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 6/03/2024 10:10 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 19:36:13 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 3/5/24 13:21, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 20:56:01 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>> wrote:[...]
I'm sure you know about it as a ritual you have learned to perform. You >>>>>> didn't actually comprehend what you were doing, [...]
Sorry, Bill. I'm not biting today. You'll have to get a bit more
inventive if you want to suck me into another of your pointless
pissing contests.
Would you please do us all the courtesy of ignoring him?
I'll try. I'll really try.
And he will fail.
No Bill, I shall not. You think you can drag me back into your endless
and pointless to-and-fro exchanges by misrepresenting my research and attempting to undermine it. And I'm jolly well not falling for it.
On Wed, 06 Mar 2024 18:03:37 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 13:18:46 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>wrote:
On 6/03/2024 10:10 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 19:36:13 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 3/5/24 13:21, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 20:56:01 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>> wrote:[...]
I'm sure you know about it as a ritual you have learned to perform. You >>>>>>> didn't actually comprehend what you were doing, [...]
Sorry, Bill. I'm not biting today. You'll have to get a bit more
inventive if you want to suck me into another of your pointless
pissing contests.
Would you please do us all the courtesy of ignoring him?
I'll try. I'll really try.
And he will fail.
No Bill, I shall not. You think you can drag me back into your endless
and pointless to-and-fro exchanges by misrepresenting my research and >>attempting to undermine it. And I'm jolly well not falling for it.
OK, *never* respond to him again. Never.
In sci.electronics.design Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 13:18:46 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 6/03/2024 10:10 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 19:36:13 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 3/5/24 13:21, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 20:56:01 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>> wrote:[...]
I'm sure you know about it as a ritual you have learned to perform. You >>>>>>> didn't actually comprehend what you were doing, [...]
Sorry, Bill. I'm not biting today. You'll have to get a bit more
inventive if you want to suck me into another of your pointless
pissing contests.
Would you please do us all the courtesy of ignoring him?
I'll try. I'll really try.
And he will fail.
No Bill, I shall not. You think you can drag me back into your endless
and pointless to-and-fro exchanges by misrepresenting my research and
attempting to undermine it. And I'm jolly well not falling for it.
And, yet... you fell for it, like a moth to a flame.
Ignoring him means: "do not post a reply (any reply) to *anything* he
says".
But you won't be able to stop either, because you suffer from the same
mental damage that Darius pointed out that Bill also suffers from.
Both of you feel you must have "the last word".
On Wed, 06 Mar 2024 18:00:28 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 13:11:00 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>wrote:
On 6/03/2024 6:24 am, Roger Hayter wrote:I'm deeply honoured that you're making the exact same criticism of me
On 5 Mar 2024 at 13:45:55 GMT, "Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote: >>>>
On 5/03/2024 11:21 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 20:56:01 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>> wrote:
On 5/03/2024 8:30 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 12:52:04 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 5/03/2024 2:50 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 15:29:02 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 4/03/2024 5:03 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
<snip>
This might have been the information you needed, if you knew enough toYour remarks were so trite they didn't bear a response. Everyone here >>>>>>>> knows electrolytic caps need to be re-formed if they've been unused >>>>>>>> for any significant length of time.
process it. The placement of your response suggests that you don't. >>>>>>>>
But you didn't mention it in your original post, and clearly don't >>>>>>> appreciate what it is actually doing.
Ah, that must be it. Over 60 years of hobby electronics and I never >>>>>> knew that. Thanks for spoon-feeding me that vital tidbit, Bill. How >>>>>> would we ever manage without you?
You don't manage all that well. The vital tit-bit of information came >>>>> from electro-chemistry, which isn't covered in detail in hobby
electronics, but was part of my undergraduate chemistry course - John >>>>> Larkin's did at least first year chemistry too, but probably wasn't
paying attention to that bit of the course.
You mean there's a *syllabus* for hobby electronics?
In the sense that you do have to learn stuff to be able be good enough
at it for it to be worth pursuing as a hobby. Cursitor Doom hasn't >>>learned all that much, and he resents having his short-comings pointed out. >>
as you make of John Larkin, Bill. That's a hell of a compliment for me
as a mere hobbyist. Thanks!
Ignore him! You are rasslin with a pig and he enjoys it.
But an electronic hobbyist is not "mere". It's a cool thing to do.
I note that he's editing his absurd mis-spelling of "probably", even
in my posts and his replies.
On Wed, 06 Mar 2024 10:18:00 -0800, john larkin <jl@650pot.com> wrote:
On Wed, 06 Mar 2024 18:00:28 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> >>wrote:
On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 13:11:00 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>wrote:
On 6/03/2024 6:24 am, Roger Hayter wrote:I'm deeply honoured that you're making the exact same criticism of me
On 5 Mar 2024 at 13:45:55 GMT, "Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 5/03/2024 11:21 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 20:56:01 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 5/03/2024 8:30 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 12:52:04 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 5/03/2024 2:50 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 15:29:02 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 4/03/2024 5:03 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
<snip>
This might have been the information you needed, if you knew enough toYour remarks were so trite they didn't bear a response. Everyone here >>>>>>>>> knows electrolytic caps need to be re-formed if they've been unused >>>>>>>>> for any significant length of time.
process it. The placement of your response suggests that you don't. >>>>>>>>>
But you didn't mention it in your original post, and clearly don't >>>>>>>> appreciate what it is actually doing.
Ah, that must be it. Over 60 years of hobby electronics and I never >>>>>>> knew that. Thanks for spoon-feeding me that vital tidbit, Bill. How >>>>>>> would we ever manage without you?
You don't manage all that well. The vital tit-bit of information came >>>>>> from electro-chemistry, which isn't covered in detail in hobby
electronics, but was part of my undergraduate chemistry course - John >>>>>> Larkin's did at least first year chemistry too, but probably wasn't >>>>>> paying attention to that bit of the course.
You mean there's a *syllabus* for hobby electronics?
In the sense that you do have to learn stuff to be able be good enough >>>>at it for it to be worth pursuing as a hobby. Cursitor Doom hasn't >>>>learned all that much, and he resents having his short-comings pointed out. >>>
as you make of John Larkin, Bill. That's a hell of a compliment for me
as a mere hobbyist. Thanks!
Ignore him! You are rasslin with a pig and he enjoys it.
But an electronic hobbyist is not "mere". It's a cool thing to do.
I note that he's editing his absurd mis-spelling of "probably", even
in my posts and his replies.
Yes, I spotted that. I had a good laugh when I saw what you did in the >prevous post. :-D
On Wed, 06 Mar 2024 22:05:20 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 06 Mar 2024 10:18:00 -0800, john larkin <jl@650pot.com> wrote:
On Wed, 06 Mar 2024 18:00:28 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> >>>wrote:
On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 13:11:00 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>wrote:
On 6/03/2024 6:24 am, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 5 Mar 2024 at 13:45:55 GMT, "Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 5/03/2024 11:21 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 20:56:01 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 5/03/2024 8:30 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 12:52:04 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 5/03/2024 2:50 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 15:29:02 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 4/03/2024 5:03 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
<snip>
This might have been the information you needed, if you knew enough toYour remarks were so trite they didn't bear a response. Everyone here
process it. The placement of your response suggests that you don't. >>>>>>>>>>
knows electrolytic caps need to be re-formed if they've been unused >>>>>>>>>> for any significant length of time.
But you didn't mention it in your original post, and clearly don't >>>>>>>>> appreciate what it is actually doing.
Ah, that must be it. Over 60 years of hobby electronics and I never >>>>>>>> knew that. Thanks for spoon-feeding me that vital tidbit, Bill. How >>>>>>>> would we ever manage without you?
You don't manage all that well. The vital tit-bit of information came >>>>>>> from electro-chemistry, which isn't covered in detail in hobby
electronics, but was part of my undergraduate chemistry course - John >>>>>>> Larkin's did at least first year chemistry too, but probably wasn't >>>>>>> paying attention to that bit of the course.
You mean there's a *syllabus* for hobby electronics?
In the sense that you do have to learn stuff to be able be good enough >>>>>at it for it to be worth pursuing as a hobby. Cursitor Doom hasn't >>>>>learned all that much, and he resents having his short-comings pointed out.
I'm deeply honoured that you're making the exact same criticism of me >>>>as you make of John Larkin, Bill. That's a hell of a compliment for me >>>>as a mere hobbyist. Thanks!
Ignore him! You are rasslin with a pig and he enjoys it.
But an electronic hobbyist is not "mere". It's a cool thing to do.
I note that he's editing his absurd mis-spelling of "probably", even
in my posts and his replies.
Yes, I spotted that. I had a good laugh when I saw what you did in the >>prevous post. :-D
Well, he rags me for my occasional mis-spellings. I wish he'd learn
the difference between its and it's.
I wish even more that he would be civil, or go away. Giant stupid
flame wars drive good people away.
On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 13:11:00 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 6/03/2024 6:24 am, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 5 Mar 2024 at 13:45:55 GMT, "Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote: >>>
On 5/03/2024 11:21 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 20:56:01 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>> wrote:
On 5/03/2024 8:30 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 12:52:04 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 5/03/2024 2:50 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 15:29:02 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 4/03/2024 5:03 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
<snip>
This might have been the information you needed, if you knew enough to >>>>>>>> process it. The placement of your response suggests that you don't. >>>>>>>Your remarks were so trite they didn't bear a response. Everyone here >>>>>>> knows electrolytic caps need to be re-formed if they've been unused >>>>>>> for any significant length of time.
But you didn't mention it in your original post, and clearly don't >>>>>> appreciate what it is actually doing.
Ah, that must be it. Over 60 years of hobby electronics and I never
knew that. Thanks for spoon-feeding me that vital tidbit, Bill. How
would we ever manage without you?
You don't manage all that well. The vital tit-bit of information came
from electro-chemistry, which isn't covered in detail in hobby
electronics, but was part of my undergraduate chemistry course - John
Larkin's did at least first year chemistry too, but probably wasn't
paying attention to that bit of the course.
You mean there's a *syllabus* for hobby electronics?
In the sense that you do have to learn stuff to be able be good enough
at it for it to be worth pursuing as a hobby. Cursitor Doom hasn't
learned all that much, and he resents having his short-comings pointed out.
I'm deeply honoured that you're making the exact same criticism of me
as you make of John Larkin, Bill. That's a hell of a compliment for me
as a mere hobbyist. Thanks!
On Wed, 06 Mar 2024 15:06:17 -0800, john larkin <jl@650pot.com> wrote:
On Wed, 06 Mar 2024 22:05:20 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote: >>> On Wed, 06 Mar 2024 10:18:00 -0800, john larkin <jl@650pot.com> wrote:
On Wed, 06 Mar 2024 18:00:28 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:>>>>> On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 13:11:00 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 6/03/2024 6:24 am, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 5 Mar 2024 at 13:45:55 GMT, "Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 5/03/2024 11:21 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 20:56:01 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 5/03/2024 8:30 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 12:52:04 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 5/03/2024 2:50 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 15:29:02 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 4/03/2024 5:03 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
I wish even more that he would be civil, or go away. Giant stupid
flame wars drive good people away.
It's a great shame, because he *can* be very informative on those few occasions when he chooses to be.
On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 13:18:46 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 6/03/2024 10:10 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 19:36:13 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 3/5/24 13:21, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 20:56:01 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>> wrote:[...]
I'm sure you know about it as a ritual you have learned to perform. You >>>>>> didn't actually comprehend what you were doing, [...]
Sorry, Bill. I'm not biting today. You'll have to get a bit more
inventive if you want to suck me into another of your pointless
pissing contests.
Would you please do us all the courtesy of ignoring him?
I'll try. I'll really try.
And he will fail.
No Bill, I shall not. You think you can drag me back into your endless
and pointless to-and-fro exchanges by misrepresenting my research and attempting to undermine it. And I'm jolly well not falling for it.
On Wed, 06 Mar 2024 22:05:20 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 06 Mar 2024 10:18:00 -0800, john larkin <jl@650pot.com> wrote:
On Wed, 06 Mar 2024 18:00:28 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 13:11:00 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 6/03/2024 6:24 am, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 5 Mar 2024 at 13:45:55 GMT, "Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 5/03/2024 11:21 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 20:56:01 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 5/03/2024 8:30 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 12:52:04 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 5/03/2024 2:50 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 15:29:02 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 4/03/2024 5:03 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
<snip>
This might have been the information you needed, if you knew enough toYour remarks were so trite they didn't bear a response. Everyone here
process it. The placement of your response suggests that you don't. >>>>>>>>>>
knows electrolytic caps need to be re-formed if they've been unused >>>>>>>>>> for any significant length of time.
But you didn't mention it in your original post, and clearly don't >>>>>>>>> appreciate what it is actually doing.
Ah, that must be it. Over 60 years of hobby electronics and I never >>>>>>>> knew that. Thanks for spoon-feeding me that vital tidbit, Bill. How >>>>>>>> would we ever manage without you?
You don't manage all that well. The vital tit-bit of information came >>>>>>> from electro-chemistry, which isn't covered in detail in hobby
electronics, but was part of my undergraduate chemistry course - John >>>>>>> Larkin's did at least first year chemistry too, but probably wasn't >>>>>>> paying attention to that bit of the course.
You mean there's a *syllabus* for hobby electronics?
In the sense that you do have to learn stuff to be able be good enough >>>>> at it for it to be worth pursuing as a hobby. Cursitor Doom hasn't
learned all that much, and he resents having his short-comings pointed out.
I'm deeply honoured that you're making the exact same criticism of me
as you make of John Larkin, Bill. That's a hell of a compliment for me >>>> as a mere hobbyist. Thanks!
Ignore him! You are rasslin with a pig and he enjoys it.
But an electronic hobbyist is not "mere". It's a cool thing to do.
I note that he's editing his absurd mis-spelling of "probably", even
in my posts and his replies.
Yes, I spotted that. I had a good laugh when I saw what you did in the
prevous post. :-D
Well, he rags me for my occasional mis-spellings. I wish he'd learn
the difference between its and it's.
I wish even more that he would be civil, or go away. Giant stupid
flame wars drive good people away.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 86:10:12 |
| Calls: | 6,717 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,248 |
| Messages: | 5,358,388 |
| Posted today: | 1 |