Re: [atlas_craftsman] Truth about Purple cleaner actual test

 

white vinegar and steel wool  cleans rust and frees rusted parts better than wd40 liquid wrench and you get a gallon for less than one small can of penetrating oil  just wash with soapy water when the rust is gone

On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 10:56 PM, jerdal@sbcglobal.net [atlas_craftsman] <atlas_craftsman@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

 

There has been a lot of comment and hyperventilation about how purple
cleaner and its relatives will eat aluminum parts. I say it doesn't, and I
decided to do a test.

Aluminum foil seemed to be a good subject for a test, it's thin, and might
provide dramatic photos of the foil eaten right up to the "water line".

Well, don't get excited, it wasn't very dramatic.

I filled a small yogurt cup (chobani greek, if it matters, 6 oz size) about
half full of undiluted purple cleaner (Zep Industrial Purple Cleaner from
Home Depot). A square of standard aluminum foil (2.25" x 2.35") was
immersed approximately halfway in the purple cleaner. Aluminum foil was
measured to be 1.8 thou thick, using a Mitutoyo 1" micrometer.

After 20 seconds or so, it began to foam up, and looked like this
http://smg.photobucket.com/user/jstanley/media/purpleclean1_zps3aa3fccf.jpg.html

I waited 10 minutes, after which not much seemed to be happening, and
removed the aluminum foil.

The remaining cleaner in the cup had a very substantial "head" on it.
http://smg.photobucket.com/user/jstanley/media/purpleclean2_zps8c4aeb1f.jpg.html

The aluminum foil was visibly complete, and after washing it was not visibly
affected by its immersion.
http://smg.photobucket.com/user/jstanley/media/purpleclean3_zpsfd7d5ffc.jpg.html

The immersed portion measured at approximately 1.2 thousandths of an inch
thick at the thinnest part, and the non-immersed part ws confirmed at 1.8
thou. The difference was 6 ten-thousandths of an inch.

Another piece of foil was immersed in the remaining purple cleaner, and did
show some bubbling, but nothing like the original thick "head" was present
after several minutes.

What I get from this is that if about 3 oz of the purple cleaner can remove
only 3 ten-thousandths of an inch thickness from each side of a piece of
aluminum foil in ten minutes of soaking, and is apparently substantially
exhausted in doing that, it is extremely unlikely to do any measurable
damage to your machine parts in any reasonable cleaning process involving
repeated dunking, scrubbing, and rinsing.

I think a good cleaning does not have to include this process, but if you
choose to use the lye-based Purple cleaners, you may do a normal sort of
cleaning (no extended soaking) without fear

--
Robert Halbrook

__._,_.___

---

Posted by: "brokenwrench1 ." <brokenwrench@gmail.com>

---

Reply via web post

•

Reply to sender

•

Reply to group

•

Start a New Topic

•

Messages in this topic (2)

TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THE LIST:
You do this yourself by sending a message to:
atlas_craftsman-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Atlas-Craftsman Projects list is at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/atlas_craftsman_projects/

To see or edit your personal settings, view the photos, files or links http://groups.yahoo.com/group/atlas_craftsman/

The Atlas-Craftsman Wiki is at http://pico-systems.com/cgi-bin/Atlas-wiki/Atlas.cgi
Please submit things you think will be useful to Jon Elson at mailto://elson@pico-systems.com

Visit Your Group

• New Members 6
• New Photos 6

• Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use

.

__,_._,___

[atlas_craftsman] Truth about Purple cleaner actual test

 

There has been a lot of comment and hyperventilation about how purple
cleaner and its relatives will eat aluminum parts. I say it doesn't, and I
decided to do a test.

Aluminum foil seemed to be a good subject for a test, it's thin, and might
provide dramatic photos of the foil eaten right up to the "water line".

Well, don't get excited, it wasn't very dramatic.

I filled a small yogurt cup (chobani greek, if it matters, 6 oz size) about
half full of undiluted purple cleaner (Zep Industrial Purple Cleaner from
Home Depot). A square of standard aluminum foil (2.25" x 2.35") was
immersed approximately halfway in the purple cleaner. Aluminum foil was
measured to be 1.8 thou thick, using a Mitutoyo 1" micrometer.

After 20 seconds or so, it began to foam up, and looked like this
http://smg.photobucket.com/user/jstanley/media/purpleclean1_zps3aa3fccf.jpg.html

I waited 10 minutes, after which not much seemed to be happening, and
removed the aluminum foil.

The remaining cleaner in the cup had a very substantial "head" on it.
http://smg.photobucket.com/user/jstanley/media/purpleclean2_zps8c4aeb1f.jpg.html

The aluminum foil was visibly complete, and after washing it was not visibly
affected by its immersion.
http://smg.photobucket.com/user/jstanley/media/purpleclean3_zpsfd7d5ffc.jpg.html

The immersed portion measured at approximately 1.2 thousandths of an inch
thick at the thinnest part, and the non-immersed part ws confirmed at 1.8
thou. The difference was 6 ten-thousandths of an inch.

Another piece of foil was immersed in the remaining purple cleaner, and did
show some bubbling, but nothing like the original thick "head" was present
after several minutes.

What I get from this is that if about 3 oz of the purple cleaner can remove
only 3 ten-thousandths of an inch thickness from each side of a piece of
aluminum foil in ten minutes of soaking, and is apparently substantially
exhausted in doing that, it is extremely unlikely to do any measurable
damage to your machine parts in any reasonable cleaning process involving
repeated dunking, scrubbing, and rinsing.

I think a good cleaning does not have to include this process, but if you
choose to use the lye-based Purple cleaners, you may do a normal sort of
cleaning (no extended soaking) without fear

__._,_.___

---

Posted by: <jerdal@sbcglobal.net>

---

Reply via web post

•

Reply to sender

•

Reply to group

•

Start a New Topic

•

Messages in this topic (1)

TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THE LIST:
You do this yourself by sending a message to:
atlas_craftsman-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Atlas-Craftsman Projects list is at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/atlas_craftsman_projects/

To see or edit your personal settings, view the photos, files or links http://groups.yahoo.com/group/atlas_craftsman/

The Atlas-Craftsman Wiki is at http://pico-systems.com/cgi-bin/Atlas-wiki/Atlas.cgi
Please submit things you think will be useful to Jon Elson at mailto://elson@pico-systems.com

Visit Your Group

• New Members 6
• New Photos 6

• Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use

.

__,_._,___

Re: [Amateur-repairs] test

 

Mathieu,

Both Yahoo delays and/or moderation might lead you to believe that
your first post didn't work. It did.

Donald

On 17 Oct 2014 18:00:53 -0700, "mathg465b@yahoo.com [Amateur-repairs]"
<Amateur-repairs@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

>sorry testing, previous new topic did not work.
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>---
>This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
>http://www.avast.com

__._,_.___

---

Posted by: donhellen@roadrunner.com

---

Reply via web post

•

Reply to sender

•

Reply to group

•

Start a New Topic

•

Messages in this topic (8)

TO UNSUBSCRIBE: login to groups.yahoo.com, select group amateur-repairs, click on "leave group" on right side of screen and follow instructions.  PLEASE do not send UNSUBSCRIBE messages to the list.

Visit Your Group

• New Members 5

• Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use

.

__,_._,___

[Amateur-repairs] test

 

sorry testing, previous new topic did not work.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

__._,_.___

---

Posted by: mathg465b@yahoo.com

---

Reply via web post

•

Reply to sender

•

Reply to group

•

Start a New Topic

•

Messages in this topic (8)

TO UNSUBSCRIBE: login to groups.yahoo.com, select group amateur-repairs, click on "leave group" on right side of screen and follow instructions.  PLEASE do not send UNSUBSCRIBE messages to the list.

Visit Your Group

• New Members 4

• Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use

.

__,_._,___

[Electronics_101] Re: L.C. Checker Test Components Suggestions Needed

 

Hello

"There are tolerance ratings given in the selection criteria at DigiKey.  When you select 1 of several 'standard' values for C or L, they may as well be as accurate as possible.  Within cost constraints.  OTOH, this device is probably not going to set a new standard for precision measurement so maybe 5% is close enough."

Richard- I thought it would be much as you stated. One of these days I'm going to have start believing in my own answers...my self-doubt is holding me back.

Thanks to everyone who answered this question.

Regards & Many Thanks

Patrick

p.s. NOTE: NO TYPO CHECK WAS DONE HERE; please forgive any that are present.

__._,_.___

---

Posted by: vw_beetle_fix_it@yahoo.com

---

Reply via web post

•

Reply to sender

•

Reply to group

•

Start a New Topic

•

Messages in this topic (12)

Please trim excess when replying

Visit Your Group

• New Members 1
• New Photos 1

• Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use

.

__,_._,___

Re: [Electronics_101] Re: L.C. Checker Test Components Suggestions Needed

 

On Saturday 13 September 2014 11:03:00 pm Paul Alciatore palciatore@gt.rr.com [Electronics_101] wrote:
> The 600 Ohm impedance which was
> standardized in the early days of AM radio with tube circuits,

I have my doubts about that. It came from telephone systems, I think.

What tube circuits have that sort of impedance? I don't recall any.

--
Member of the toughest, meanest, deadliest, most unrelenting -- and
ablest -- form of life in this section of space, a critter that can
be killed but can't be tamed. --Robert A. Heinlein, "The Puppet Masters"
-
Information is more dangerous than cannon to a society ruled by lies. --James
M Dakin

__._,_.___

---

Posted by: "Roy J. Tellason, Sr." <rtellason@gmail.com>

---

Reply via web post

•

Reply to sender

•

Reply to group

•

Start a New Topic

•

Messages in this topic (11)

Please trim excess when replying

Visit Your Group

• New Members 3

• Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use

.

__,_._,___

[Electronics_101] Re: L.C. Checker Test Components Suggestions Needed

 

I offer several facts for you to consider.

1. Most computer cards do not have speaker level/impedance outputs.
They will not have a power amplifier which is needed for speakers.
Perhaps enough for headphones, but then the jack would be marked for
them. I would bet large sums that the card you have has a "line
output". But read below.

2. Not all "line outputs" are created equal. In the professional and
broadcast world, where I happen to come from, line output means an
output that is capable of delivering between 0 and +10 dbm into a 600
Ohm load. 0 dbm (deci Bells, milliWatt) can be easily be calculated
as 0.775 V (V^2 / R = 0.001W). But that is into a 600 Ohm load, not a
high impedance. On the other hand, much consumer equipment, probably
including computer cards, will use the same Voltage level but with a
high source impedance. So, if it is attached to a 600 Ohm load, the
high source impedance will effectively be in series with that 600 Ohm
load resistance and the Voltage level will be divided down to a very
low value, perhaps around 0.05V or less. Hence a high impedance, line
level output can not properly drive a 600 Ohm load. Most consumer
equipment takes this into account and then uses high impedance
inputs, which limit this Voltage loss to perhaps a factor of 50% or
around 0.4V. Not ideal, but usable. The tradeoff is in noise pickup
in the lines between devices. The 600 Ohm impedance which was
standardized in the early days of AM radio with tube circuits, is
barely considered low by today's standards where a transistor output
can have an output impedance of 1 Ohm or less. But it still has a lot
more resistance to noise pickup than a 10,000 Ohm, high impedance circuit.

3. The trick in many modern audio systems is to use a very low
impedance output with high impedance inputs. If the cable lengths are
not too long, perhaps under 100 feet for most audio cables, this
works very well. And since the source impedance is low, the noise
immunity is still good.

4. Your card that is marked Left, Right, and Center Speakers is
probably some form of "line outputs" that are simply labeled for
those speakers, respectively. In all probability, they do not have a
speaker style signal and if you fed them to speakers you would have a
very low sound because the low impedance of the speakers would drop
the level way down.

5. Many, dare I say ALL, computer "speakers" are really are a
combination of a speaker and an audio power amplifier in the same
package. They are DESIGNEDfor "line level" inputs to match the "line
level" outputs of computer cards.

So, you probably have almost exactly what you need.

One more thought. In a professional environment I often used a low
impedance audio output to feed high impedance inputs. This has never
produced any problems and is almost the preferred way of doing it in
many circumstances. Audio signals do not normally have lines that are
long enough to produce the standing wave and reflection problems that
higher, radio frequency signals do so having the "proper" terminating
resistance at the receiving end of the line really is not necessary.

__._,_.___

---

Posted by: Paul Alciatore <PAlciatore@gt.rr.com>

---

Reply via web post

•

Reply to sender

•

Reply to group

•

Start a New Topic

•

Messages in this topic (10)

Please trim excess when replying

Visit Your Group

• New Members 3

• Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use

.

__,_._,___