Leaking Electrolytics

[Cursitor Doom]

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"!

[John Larkin]

Post by Cursitor Doom
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.

[Cursitor Doom]

Post by John Larkin

Post by Cursitor Doom
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?

Post by John Larkin
An electro that hasn't been used for some time will be leaky at first.
That's normal.

Good point.

Post by John Larkin
Expect a 47m cap to leak more than a 47u. Your capmeter may not know
the value.

It wasn't able to measure the capacity at all. It did report a very
low ESR commensurate with a large value electrolytic. But that was all
it was able to measure.

Post by John Larkin
It's interesting to test elec and polymer caps, current vs voltage
over time, forward and reverse.

Indeed.

[John Larkin]

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by John Larkin

Post by Cursitor Doom
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.

[Cursitor Doom]

Post by John Larkin

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by John Larkin

Post by Cursitor Doom
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

[John Larkin]

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by John Larkin

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by John Larkin

Post by Cursitor Doom
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.

[Cursitor Doom]

Post by John Larkin

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by John Larkin

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by John Larkin

Post by Cursitor Doom
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....

[John Larkin]

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by John Larkin

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by John Larkin

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by John Larkin

Post by Cursitor Doom
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.

Post by Cursitor Doom
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]

Post by John Larkin

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by John Larkin

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by John Larkin

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by John Larkin

Post by Cursitor Doom
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?

Post by John Larkin

Post by Cursitor Doom
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....

[Liz Tuddenham]

Cursitor Doom <***@notformail.com> wrote:

[...]

Post by Cursitor Doom
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.

[Cursitor Doom]

Post by Liz Tuddenham
[...]

Post by Cursitor Doom
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.

Seems pretty definitive. Thanks, Liz.

[John Larkin]

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by John Larkin

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by John Larkin

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by John Larkin

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by John Larkin

Post by Cursitor Doom
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.

You might care about

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.

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by John Larkin

Post by Cursitor Doom
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]

Post by John Larkin

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by John Larkin

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by John Larkin

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by John Larkin

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by John Larkin

Post by Cursitor Doom
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:-

Post by John Larkin
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.

[john larkin]

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by John Larkin

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by John Larkin

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by John Larkin

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by John Larkin

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by John Larkin

Post by Cursitor Doom
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:-

Post by John Larkin
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.

[Cursitor Doom]

Post by john larkin

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by John Larkin

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by John Larkin

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by John Larkin

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by John Larkin

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by John Larkin

Post by Cursitor Doom
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:-

Post by John Larkin
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.

[Bill Sloman]

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by john larkin

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by John Larkin

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by John Larkin

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by John Larkin

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by John Larkin

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by John Larkin

Post by Cursitor Doom
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:-

Post by John Larkin
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.

[Cursitor Doom]

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by john larkin

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by John Larkin

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by John Larkin

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by John Larkin

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by John Larkin

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by John Larkin

Post by Cursitor Doom
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:-

Post by John Larkin
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.

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.

[Bill Sloman]

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by Cursitor Doom
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?

[Cursitor Doom]

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by Cursitor Doom
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?

Oh yes. No doubt a professional repair technician would find a way
around it, but it's above my pay grade.

[Bill Sloman]

<snip>

Post by Cursitor Doom
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?

Capacitors usually come with manufacturer's logos and part numbers.

Google should be able to find you the relevant data sheet.
For a given size, voltage rating and technology a broad-line distributor
can usually throw a similar part, and it's data sheet.
<snip>

[Ralph Mowery]

Post by Cursitor Doom
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....

The Peak metrs are only expensive because of the name. China has the
same thing on ebay for around $ 20. The China ones have multifunctions
instead of just one or two the Peak meters have. That is so Peak can
sell you two or three meters that are really the same but functions
missing.

[Ralph Mowery]

In article <***@4ax.com>, jl@
997PotHill.com says...

Post by John Larkin
I don't trust C or L meters, especially for large C or L values, or
cheap meters.

The better capacitor testers will test the capacitor under its rated
voltage, especially the electrolytics.

If they have not been used is a long time it takes the rated voltage for
them to reform. The factory usually forms them at a higher voltage than
they are rated for.

[Bill Sloman]

Post by Cursitor Doom
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.

Post by Cursitor Doom
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.

[Cursitor Doom]

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by Cursitor Doom
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!

Post by Bill Sloman
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.

Post by Cursitor Doom
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.

[John Larkin]

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by Cursitor Doom
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.

[Cursitor Doom]

Post by John Larkin

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by Cursitor Doom
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.

[Bill Sloman]

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by John Larkin

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by Cursitor Doom
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.

John Larkin and Cursitor Doom are frequently wrong. Their addiction to
certain sorts of misinformation may make them popular in their social
circles, so they aren't necessarily stupid,even if they do post a lot of
foolish nonsense

Post by Cursitor Doom
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.

A trifle ironic, given that Cursitor Doom's response was placed before
my explanation of what was going on. It wasn't all that technical, but
he still doesn't seem to have read it.

[Bill Sloman]

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by Cursitor Doom
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 error comes from imagining that the two were connected.

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Bill Sloman
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.

Post by Cursitor Doom
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.

[Cursitor Doom]

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by Cursitor Doom
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 error comes from imagining that the two were connected.

How's the weather on Planet Sloman today, Bill?

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Bill Sloman
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.

Post by Cursitor Doom
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.

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 unsused
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!

[Bill Sloman]

<snip>

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Bill Sloman
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.

Post by Cursitor Doom
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.

[Cursitor Doom]

Post by Bill Sloman
<snip>

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Bill Sloman
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?

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by Cursitor Doom
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.

[Bill Sloman]

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Bill Sloman
<snip>

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Bill Sloman
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.

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by Cursitor Doom
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.

The kind that involves you telling everybody that you know more about
anthropogenic global warming than the academic experts on the subject,
because you studied some dubious data published in the 1890's, and have
ignored all the work that has been done since then?

That's more of a crapping contest - with all the crap coming from you.

[Roger Hayter]

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Bill Sloman
<snip>

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Bill Sloman
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?

[john larkin]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Bill Sloman
<snip>

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Bill Sloman
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 robablyu out sailing or something.

[Bill Sloman]

Post by john larkin

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Bill Sloman
<snip>

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Bill Sloman
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.

It wasn't explicitly about electrolytic capacitors - if there was
practical reference it was to anodising aluminium, with a passing
reference to why you didn't have to anodise chromium or stainless steel.

[Bill Sloman]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Bill Sloman
<snip>

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Bill Sloman
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.

[Cursitor Doom]

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Bill Sloman
<snip>

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Bill Sloman
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!

[john larkin]

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Bill Sloman
<snip>

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Bill Sloman
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!

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.

[Cursitor Doom]

Post by john larkin

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Bill Sloman
<snip>

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Bill Sloman
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!

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

[john larkin]

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by john larkin

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Bill Sloman
<snip>

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Bill Sloman
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!

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.

[Cursitor Doom]

Post by john larkin

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by john larkin

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Bill Sloman
<snip>

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Bill Sloman
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!

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.

It's a great shame, because he *can* be very informative on those few
occasions when he chooses to be.

[Bill Sloman]

<snip>

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by john larkin
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.

John Larkin doesn't want to be informed - he wants to be admired -and
any suggestion that he might need to be better informed is taken as an
insult.

Informing Cursitor Doom runs into a similar kind of problem - Cursitor
Doom is addicted to particularly fatuous conspiracy theories, and
resents being told quite how fatuous they are.

[Bill Sloman]

Post by john larkin

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by john larkin

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Bill Sloman
<snip>

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Bill Sloman
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!

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 rag John Larkin for regularly and consistently misspelling semester as
semister. Everybody makes typographic errors, but he makes that mistake
reliably. I really do known the difference between its (possessive) and
it's (a contraction of "it is") but both words cone up often enough to
be subject to the occassional typo.

Post by john larkin
I wish even more that he would be civil, or go away. Giant stupid
flame wars drive good people away.

Being civil to John Larkin is waste of time, he's much too
over-confident to notice diplomatic correction.

Flame wars can be fun.

[Bill Sloman]

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Bill Sloman
<snip>

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Bill Sloman
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!

It's more a criticism of John Larkin. He's still streets ahead of you
when it comes to real electronics, if not - perhaps - quite as far as he
likes to think.

[Jeroen Belleman]

[...]

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Bill Sloman
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

[darius]

Post by Jeroen Belleman
[...]

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Bill Sloman
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.

[Bill Sloman]

Post by darius

Post by Jeroen Belleman
[...]

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Bill Sloman
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.

Only if the last word strikes me as worth saying.

Post by darius
So every time CD responds, required to respond in kind, Bill is, the
last word, in order to have.

Darius would know about that - he has been calling everybody here an
off-topic troll for at least a year now,

Post by darius
To infinity unless CD stops responding first, this will continue.

Darius is an even more horrible example than Cursitor Doom. Cursitor
Doom at least goes through the motions of providing an intellectual
justification for his mindless carping.

[Cursitor Doom]

On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 19:36:13 +0100, Jeroen Belleman

Post by Jeroen Belleman
[...]

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Bill Sloman
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

I'll try. I'll really try.

[Bill Sloman]

Post by Cursitor Doom
On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 19:36:13 +0100, Jeroen Belleman

Post by Jeroen Belleman
[...]

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Bill Sloman
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.

[Cursitor Doom]

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by Cursitor Doom
On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 19:36:13 +0100, Jeroen Belleman

Post by Jeroen Belleman
[...]

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Bill Sloman
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.

[john larkin]

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by Cursitor Doom
On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 19:36:13 +0100, Jeroen Belleman

Post by Jeroen Belleman
[...]

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Bill Sloman
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.

[Cursitor Doom]

Post by john larkin

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by Cursitor Doom
On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 19:36:13 +0100, Jeroen Belleman

Post by Jeroen Belleman
[...]

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Bill Sloman
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.

Yes sir, no problem. You'll see.

[Keegan Major]

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by Cursitor Doom
On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 19:36:13 +0100, Jeroen Belleman

Post by Jeroen Belleman
[...]

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Bill Sloman
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".

[Cursitor Doom]

On Wed, 06 Mar 2024 19:08:02 GMT, Keegan Major

Post by Keegan Major

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by Cursitor Doom
On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 19:36:13 +0100, Jeroen Belleman

Post by Jeroen Belleman
[...]

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Bill Sloman
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".

No, Bill is the one who must always have the last word every time. I
know that so just let him have it.

[Bill Sloman]

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by Cursitor Doom
On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 19:36:13 +0100, Jeroen Belleman

Post by Jeroen Belleman
[...]

Post by Cursitor Doom

Post by Bill Sloman
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.

I'm not misrepresenting your "research" - such as it was - and I'm not
trying to "undermined" it. It was a pathetic waste of time, and I just
collapse your house of cards.

"Undermining" implies that that it had some kind of structure, and it
didn't.

The really comical part of your story is your excuse for ignoring all
the work that has been done on the subject since the 1890's - as a giant
conspiracy theory to sell the world on anthropogenic global warming.

In fact you are a part of well funded conspiracy to ignore the science
that started in the late 1990's when the fossil carbon extraction
industry realised that anthropogenic global warming was eventually going
to reduce their cash flows.

By 2010 this was obvious enough to get written up in a book that sold well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt

In 2006 it was obvious enough to earn a chapter in George Monbiot's "Heat".

https://www.monbiot.com/books/heat/

You've got the situation exactly ass backwards - which probably appeals
to your enthusiasm for fatuous absurdity.

[Liz Tuddenham]

Cursitor Doom <***@notformail.com> wrote:

[...]CD.

Post by Cursitor Doom
PS: the aforementioned caps are 47000uF 16V Vishay ones - and I have a
brand new spare that's also testing as "leaky"!

If an electrolytic capacitor hasn't been used for some time, it is a
good idea to charge it up from a variable-voltage power supply, starting
at a very low voltage with an ammeter in series. If it is leaky the
initial charging current surge will settle down to a steady leakage
which will decrease in time. Then the voltage can be raised a bit and
the leakage current will increase for a while, then reduce again.

By doing this slowly over several hours you re-form the insulating layer
in the capacitor. If you apply the full voltage straight away, the
leakage current will be high and can cause further damage. It can also
boil the electrolyte and cause the capacitor to explode. Modern
capacitors have a 'safe' explosion arrangment built-in (a pattern of
weak points in the top of the casing) but older ones don't - and the
damage from flying debris can be quite spectacular (I have seen a CRT
cut in half when a capacitor can went through it).

[Cursitor Doom]

Post by Liz Tuddenham
[...]CD.

Post by Cursitor Doom
PS: the aforementioned caps are 47000uF 16V Vishay ones - and I have a
brand new spare that's also testing as "leaky"!

If an electrolytic capacitor hasn't been used for some time, it is a
good idea to charge it up from a variable-voltage power supply, starting
at a very low voltage with an ammeter in series. If it is leaky the
initial charging current surge will settle down to a steady leakage
which will decrease in time. Then the voltage can be raised a bit and
the leakage current will increase for a while, then reduce again.
By doing this slowly over several hours you re-form the insulating layer
in the capacitor. If you apply the full voltage straight away, the
leakage current will be high and can cause further damage. It can also
boil the electrolyte and cause the capacitor to explode. Modern
capacitors have a 'safe' explosion arrangment built-in (a pattern of
weak points in the top of the casing) but older ones don't - and the
damage from flying debris can be quite spectacular (I have seen a CRT
cut in half when a capacitor can went through it).

Quite so. I blew up a little 10uF 10V cap the other day and the bang
wasn't far off that of a starting pistol. Mind you I did use a massive
over-voltage reverse polarity to purposely get a bigger bang out of
it. I don't often get bored, but that's what happens once in a while.