Deoxt

[Ralph Mowery]

In article <chdaobhitefakvmkjulk58bhhvkau9tkrm@4ax.com>,
jeffl@cruzio.com says...

On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 12:44:20 -0400, Ralph Mowery
rmowery28146@earthlink.net> wrote:

The Deoxit I bought a few days ago must not contain any of the oleic
acid.


Taking a wild guess, I blundered upon:
http://store.caig.com/core/media/media.nl?id=1902&c=ACCT113328&h=669fee694d58ba7465c0&whence=
which offers:
PETROLEUM NAPHTHA 75%
DIFLUOROETHANE 20%
DeoxITŽ D100L TRADE SECRET 5%
Oh well. That's probably the Deoxit product that Caig was reselling
back in the 1980's.

The directions say to spray and activate the knobs. Then give it a
short spray and wait 2 minutes before turning the equipment on. I guess
that the wait time is to make sure any thaing that burns has evaporated.
There is no mention of cleaning it off, but really should be left on the
contacts from the way I read it.

Find a piece of copper. Drip on some Deoxit. See if there's any
green colored corrosion. You may need a microscope to see it.

They do not list the % on the can I have,but that is what is in it on
the lable for the can I just bought.

I sprayed some on a piece of copper PC board so will wait overnight and
see if it turns green.

I wish the government would make the companies list everything the put
into the products. Not being able to hold back as far as a trade
secret. I don't care what percent, but do care about what is in it.

 

[Ralph Mowery]

In article <565f57e6-3068-40bc-88c1-1fe63d4bc50c@googlegroups.com>,
dansabrservices@yahoo.com says...

The MSDS should list all of the chemical ingredients. Check there.

Not exectally. It lists something called Deoxit D-Series D100L Trade
Secret for the CAS No.

That tells nothing about what the C100L is.

http://hosatech.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/MSDS-E-D5S-A_v31.pdf

 

[Dave Platt]

In article <MPG.31ef22418207f25b9896f1@news.east.earthlink.net>,
Ralph Mowery <rmowery28146@earthlink.net> wrote:

I wish the government would make the companies list everything the put
into the products. Not being able to hold back as far as a trade
secret. I don't care what percent, but do care about what is in it.

There are a whole lot of people who would scream "Government
over-reach!" for any such attempt. It would be seen as a serious blow
to research and innovation... in effect, you'd be forced to reveal the
result of your (possibly-expensive) research to all of your
competitors, in order to put any chemical product on the market.

From what I read in the documentation, the MSDS rules were tailored to
meet the needs for which they were designed... materials safety. Even
in the case of a trade secret, they require that the manufacturer
spell out the dangers, materials-handling rules, fire-fighting rules,
permissible exposure levels, and so forth. They also require that the
manufacturer disclose the actual chemical composition to medical
authorities in case of medical emergencies (although this can be under
terms of nondisclosure).

Wanting to know just what's in a spray, so you can tell how it may
affect any particular sort of materials? I don't blame you at all for
that, but it's not a safety issue... it's a product usability issue.
OSHA doesn't appear to consider this relevant to the rules for MSDS.

I think the conventional answer would probably be "That's an issue for
you and the product manufacturer to discuss, privately. If you don't
like their answer, don't buy their product."

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 16:39:22 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

The red was a CLEANER, was labeled as a rinse-off-after product. The contact enhancer
was the blue, apply-and-forget. The enhancer works well, but the patent has expired,
so Caig literature is rather obscure on the ingredient labels. DeOxit Shield S has
NATO stock number
NSN 6850-00-450-5821, and hasn't changed since that number was issued... 47 years ago?

Yep. I took some photos of the labels. Use your own judgment as to
whether it should be rinsed off, or if you like corrosion.
<http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/pics/Cramolin%20R-100L/>
I'll find a tripod to take better photos later today. It's difficult
to get good depth of field on a cylindrical object with a junk camera.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[Phil Allison]

Jeff Liebermann wrote:

** The dark coating that forms on silver is *silver sulphate* (aka Ag2S).

I stand half way corrected. Y'er right. Most of the tarnish is
silver sulphide.

** There is simply no silver oxide formed at room temp.

The idea of using oleic acid on electrical contacts worries as it
must become conductive under enough voltage.


What do you mean "must become conductive"? Do you mean that the oleic
acid becomes conductive, or perhaps the contact cleaner?

** I was referring to products that use oleic or any other acid in the mix.

Even the smallest leakage current can be a disaster with electronics - track to track on PBCs or between plate and grid pins of a vacuum tube or its socket.

Products like WD40 are certain to cause no leakage.


..... Phil

 

>"** There is simply no silver oxide formed at room temp. "

Unless you got some qualifiers for that statement, it is not true. If true, what is that shit on my silver candy bowl ?

>"Even the smallest leakage current can be a disaster with >electronics - track to track on PBCs or between plate and grid pins >of a vacuum tube or its socket. "

I would still not use anything that is not residue free on a tube socket. Either that or clean it off with solvent(s) that are residue free and make sure the residue is gone. Actually, it seems to usually be the tube pins causing the problem more than the socket.

>"Products like WD40 are certain to cause no leakage. "

Unless it is sealed it is still a good idea to wash it down. There can be conductive stuff in the dust in the air and it can stick to the oil residue. So maybe the oil is not conductive but the resulting goop is. It really does depend on what you're cleaning.

And cleaning high voltage pots is clearly contraindicated. Like the focus and screen controls on a TV, or similar ones going to the CRT in a CRO. However they very rarely need it.

And what most people do not realize is that in a pot, usually you are not cleaning the carbon element, you are cleaning the contact for the wiper.

Talking about stuff becoming conductive, in my bigscreen TV days there used to be coolant leaks. It would leak but it was not conductive - YET. After electrical potential is applied for a time the shit became not only conductive but corrosive. Many nightmares over that. Soaks into the board and screws that all up, eats the copper and the pins off of components. And nobody knows until the failure happens. And if it leaks onto SMPS, HV or line output section it can cause a fire, so manufacturers started installing gutters..

And let's not go too much into when lytics leak all over the board. I have had to run some through many cycles to get them clean.

And it doesn't take high voltage to make a problem. Last year I worked on a fairly expensive Roland drum machine. the output OP AMP was misbiased at the input and I could not figure out why. Well later I find the board with the output level control had been doused by some sort of contact cleaner, there was residue all over it. I cleaned that fucker many many times and it didn't work. I had to modify the thing to tolerate the leakage ! Actually a 47K resistor to ground did the trick.

Whenever I go to a shop and they give me a can of cleaner I spray it on a paper towel. I want to see it COMPLETELY dry. Pure TF, though not the best cleaner, you could be sure there is nothing left of it and fast. But that is pretty much a form of Freon and you can't get it in the US anymore, except maybe in the military or under some special license. I got some Freon 12, maybe ten pounds of it and if I sell it that's like $100 a pound and I want to first see the car it goes into hold a nitrogen charge for a week at least.

 

[Phil Allison]

jurb...@gmail.com wrote:

"** There is simply no silver oxide formed at room temp. "

Unless you got some qualifiers for that statement, it is not true

** Use Google and find out.

If true, what is that shit on my silver candy bowl ?

** As already explained, it's "Silver Sulphate" or Ag2S !!!

I would still not use anything that is not residue free on a tube socket.

** A comment about you, not the topic. How silly.

"Products like WD40 are certain to cause no leakage. "

Unless it is sealed it is still a good idea to wash it down.
There can be conductive stuff in the dust in the air and it
can stick to the oil residue. So maybe the oil is not conductive
but the resulting goop is. It really does depend on what you're cleaning.

** So you have not tried it and have no idea.

Just like all the other half wit, WD40 paranoids




..... Phil

 

[pfjw@aol.com]

On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 2:07:56 AM UTC-4, Phil Allison wrote:

Products like WD40 are certain to cause no leakage.

Funny thing about WD40 (W-ater D-isplacement, 40th try). Unlike most of the similar formulations discussed here, it is truly 100% volatile, but the time it takes to volatilize varies based on temperature and environment (humidity and so forth) can be from a few minutes to several days. But, the very light mineral oil (stoddard solvent/ultra-refined kerosene) in with the propellants does evaporate before it decays (oxidizes). And it is the decay products that can turn into a sticky mess, attract dust and otherwise cause havoc.

Most of the "badness" attributed to WD40 is from residual scum that is softened by the WD40, distributed throughout the system, and then rehardens into that sticky mess when the WD goes away. Wasn't that way before, therefore it is *because of* and *due to* the WD... This is the fallacy of post hoc, ergo propter hoc, and the brute reality is that _Not Enough_ WD was used to remove the scum entirely. Spray it on. Let it sit for 5 -10 minutes, rinse and repeat. Might be twice, might be three times, but eventually the part will be clean. No threat to plastics, no threat to metals, won't attack graphite binders...

Guys and gals, the stuff may be purchased in anything from small pocket spray cans to 55 gallon drums. Use a rechargeable spray can and one has an excellent solvent for pennies the ounce. When I get into that level of use, I put an inch of kitty litter in the bottom of a trash can, and spray away. Nothing goes into the ground, there is no sticky mess, and the litter is dry by the next day anyway.

On silver - back in the day when coal was burnt for everything from heat to steel making to transportation to making Carbon Monoxide (town gas) for lighting, there was a LOT of sulphur in the air. And the servants were ALWAYS polishing the "plate" as it would turn dark very nearly overnight. Things are cleaner now, and it takes several days to nearly never. But silver oxides do not form at room temperature naturally. Full stop. I keep a pre-amp that uses silver contacts and wipers on several of the pots and switches inside. They are nearly as bright as when new, not much gets inside the 'box' to cause problems. Funny thing - it was a "cheap" preamp back in the day.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

 

[Chris Jones]

On 12/07/2016 05:19, Ralph Mowery wrote:

I have not used it but just bought a spray can of Deoxit. From reading
about it, it seems to be the greatest stuff for cleaning contacts.

I have an old Tectronix Scope 465B that one chanel has a flakey input
switch. The manual says only to use isopropal alcohol to clean it
with, I did that with some 99% and it helped some, but thinking of
using some of the Deoxit on the switch. Would that be ok or not.

I would hate to mess up the switches as they would be almost impossiable
to find replacements for .

The little fork-shaped things that touch the PCB are exposed to dust in
those scopes. If you put any kind of lubricant, that will probably
collect more dust and increase your problems. I think that is why Tek
recommends a cleaner that leaves no residue that the dust could get
stuck to. Why not try what Tek recommended, especially if it is still
available (non-CFC).

Often on the 475 (I guess similar) the input attenuator things would
have bad contact with the sockets that they are in. Just unplugging them
and re-plugging them (one at a time so as not to mix them up) usually
cures that, though I am willing to believe that some contact cleaner
wiped just on the attenuator pins (not sprayed everywhere) might help
since dust shouldn't get in there.

Chris

 

"That's scarcely proof... and a claim that's made on the basis of
"zero evidence of this on the net" isn't really to be taken >seriously,
I think. "

Don't believe it then, but I don't make shit up. There WAS evidence of it which has all been removed. How do you think I found out ?

I did NOT imagine this.

 

[pfjw@aol.com]

On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 4:14:34 PM UTC-4, jurb...@gmail.com wrote:

Don't believe it then, but I don't make shit up. There WAS evidence of it which has all been removed. How do you think I found out ?

I did NOT imagine this.

No, you did not. However, it is quite common knowledge and you have seriously misplaced the application.

My wife makes yogurt from whole milk and active cultures she saves from the previous batch. She makes it Asian style (thin as light cream) and Euro style - thick as pudding. It is a matter of the culture, cure time and base used. Were there the "virus" as you suggest in the milk, this simply would not happen.

http://www.listex.eu/product/

I think you conflated this product with paranoid imaginings, perhaps some mind-altering substances and a few other imagined conspiracies.

Here is the basic failure point of _ALL_ serious conspiracies from the faked moon landing to the Masons and Knights Templar ruling the earth. In order for any such thing to be true, uncounted thousands must be "in" on the secret. Human nature being what it is, at least a hundred or so of these uncounted thousands are going to let the secret escape, and with real, credible proof. It may be impossible to prove the negative, but it is laughingly easy to prove what actually exists.

As to "removing" all the proof from the net - that would be yet another impossible conspiracy.

Or, in the immortal words of Stephen Stills:

There's something happening here
But what it is ain't exactly clear
There's a man with a gun over there
Telling me I got to beware

I think it's time we stop
Children, what's that sound?
Everybody look - what's going down?

There's battle lines being drawn
Nobody's right if everybody's wrong
Young people speaking' their minds
Getting so much resistance from behind

It's time we stop
Hey, what's that sound?
Everybody look - what's going down?

What a field day for the heat
A thousand people in the street
Singing songs and carrying signs
Mostly saying, "hooray for our side"

It's time we stop
Hey, what's that sound?
Everybody look - what's going down?

Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you're always afraid
Step out of line, the men come and take you away

We better stop
Hey, what's that sound?
Everybody look - what's going down?

We better stop
Hey, what's that sound?
Everybody look - what's going down?

We better stop
Now, what's that sound?
Everybody look - what's going down?

We better stop
Children, what's that sound?
Everybody look - what's going down?

 

[Dave Platt]

In article <93e94a98-82b6-480f-8ee8-7c2376405b7a@googlegroups.com>,
<jurb6006@gmail.com> wrote:

The REAL problem is when they apply it to foods. Realize that in this
country they do not tell you they put a virus in milk that attacks the
bacteria that makes it go sour. Extends the shelf life. I know there is
zero evidence of this on the net but you can prove it yourself. Just
leave some milk out of the fridge and let it go bad. It no longer goes
sour, it goes bitter.

That's scarcely proof... and a claim that's made on the basis of
"zero evidence of this on the net" isn't really to be taken seriously,
I think.

Have you not heard of "pasteurization"? It is standard procedure in
the U.S. to require that commercially-sold milk products be
pasteurized, and has been for roughly a century.

Standard milk pasteurization temperatures kill almost all pathogenic
bacteria in the milk, and also kill most of the bacteria which cause
milk to sour naturally. These temperatures are *not* high enough to
kill all of the bacteria in raw milk... and some relatively
slow-growing heat-tolerant bacteria will survive and will cause the
milk to go bad after a few days.

It's possible to buy ("ultra-heat-treated") milk, which has been
heated briefly to well above boiling temperature for a few seconds.
It can be stored at room temperature for months.

The details of this process haven't changed very much in decades. I
learned about this in microbiology class, in high school, back in the
late 1960s. My teacher made the distinction between "goes sour" and
"goes bad" way back then. It's nothing new.

Pasteurization is a more thorough process than your proposed "virus
attacks the bacteria" treatment would be. Heat treatment kills or
stunts most species of bacteria and archaea in the milk. Viruses
would very probably attack only a limited range of the
bacteria... even if they killed the "souring" bacteria such as
Lactobacillus, they would leave other species untouched (e.g. E. coli)
and the milk would still require pasteurization to be sold legally and
safely.

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 23:07:52 -0700 (PDT), Phil Allison
<pallison49@gmail.com> wrote:

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
** The dark coating that forms on silver is *silver sulphate* (aka Ag2S).

I stand half way corrected. Y'er right. Most of the tarnish is
silver sulphide.

** There is simply no silver oxide formed at room temp.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarnish>
Tarnish is a thin layer of corrosion that forms over copper,
brass, silver, aluminum, magnesium and other similar metals
as their outermost layer undergoes a chemical reaction.
Tarnish does not always result from the sole effects of
oxygen in the air. For example, silver needs hydrogen sulfide
to tarnish, although it may tarnish with oxygen over time.

I'm not sure how much time is required, but my guess is that it's in
months.

The idea of using oleic acid on electrical contacts worries as it
must become conductive under enough voltage.

What do you mean "must become conductive"? Do you mean that the oleic
acid becomes conductive, or perhaps the contact cleaner?

** I was referring to products that use oleic or any other acid in the mix.
Even the smallest leakage current can be a disaster with electronics -
track to track on PBCs or between plate and grid pins of a vacuum tube
or its socket.

Good point. However, I couldn't find anything on the electrical
conductivity of oleic acid.
<https://www.ebi.ac.uk/chembldb/index.php/compound/inspect/ChEMBL8659>
<https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/445639>
If I feel ambitious, I'll try some on a glass slide with my antique
hand crank Megger meter. Something like this:
<http://www.richardsradios.co.uk/megger.html>
Last time I used it, I managed to zap myself, so I'm not thrilled with
doing this. Still, it's handy for measuring leakage resistance and
torturing customers to pay my exorbitant fees.

>Products like WD40 are certain to cause no leakage.

Well, at least you have the correct approach. If you don't know, try
it and see what it really does. It's much better to test than to
speculate. However, my opinions and experiences with WD40 are
somewhat different than yours. I'll use it for all kinds of
mechanical devices, but I keep it away from electronics for the same
reason you seem to dislike oleic acid. Both tend to migrate to where
they don't belong.

Drivel: No matter what the topic of the discussion, if it is about
chemicals for electronics, the discussion will inevitably gravitate
down to WD40.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 03:03:31 -0700 (PDT), Phil Allison
<pallison49@gmail.com> wrote:

>> If true, what is that shit on my silver candy bowl ?

A layer of sugar eating bugs perhaps?

> ** As already explained, it's "Silver Sulphate" or Ag2S !!!

Minor correction. Ag2S is silver sulphide, not sulphate:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_sulfide>

> Just like all the other half wit, WD40 paranoids

"Only the paranoid survive".
(Andrew Grove)

"Trust no one".
<https://www.google.com/search?q=trust+no+one&tbm=isch>

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[John Robertson]

On 07/13/2016 3:52 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 23:07:52 -0700 (PDT), Phil Allison
pallison49@gmail.com> wrote:

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
** The dark coating that forms on silver is *silver sulphate* (aka Ag2S).

I stand half way corrected. Y'er right. Most of the tarnish is
silver sulphide.

....

Drivel: No matter what the topic of the discussion, if it is about
chemicals for electronics, the discussion will inevitably gravitate
down to WD40.

I think we will call this Jeff's Law.

John ;-#)#

--
(Please post followups or tech inquiries to the USENET newsgroup)
John's Jukes Ltd. 2343 Main St., Vancouver, BC, Canada V5T 3C9
(604)872-5757 or Fax 872-2010 (Pinballs, Jukes, Video Games)
www.flippers.com
"Old pinballers never die, they just flip out."

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 16:28:02 -0700, John Robertson <spam@flippers.com>
wrote:

On 07/13/2016 3:52 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
Drivel: No matter what the topic of the discussion, if it is about
chemicals for electronics, the discussion will inevitably gravitate
down to WD40.

I think we will call this Jeff's Law.
John ;-#)#

Sorry but that name is already taken, at least in Florida:
<http://cyberbullying.org/jeffs-law>
Also, such an association might tarnish my reputation. Think of
something else or something better.




--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[Phil Allison]

Jeff Liebermann wrote:

** There is simply no silver oxide formed at room temp.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarnish
Tarnish is a thin layer of corrosion that forms over copper,
brass, silver, aluminum, magnesium and other similar metals
as their outermost layer undergoes a chemical reaction.
Tarnish does not always result from the sole effects of
oxygen in the air. For example, silver needs hydrogen sulfide
to tarnish, although it may tarnish with oxygen over time.

** The Wiki does not actually say that *silver oxide* is formed on bare silver, in air at room temp.

Other Google references say that in rare cases, silver chloride can form but make no mention of silver oxide.


..... Phil

 

[gregz]

Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:

On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 10:45:58 -0700 (PDT), "pfjw@aol.com"
pfjw@aol.com> wrote:

In the US, Caig once had a relationship with Cramolin - selling
Cramolin's products packaged for US markets. That relationship
failed. And - the story behind the Caig Company, DeOxit,
Cramolin and Cramolin Red is fascinating and does not reflect
well on Caig.

I will not use Caig's products. Full Stop.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

Here's part of the story:
http://www.pitt.edu/~szekeres/caigcram.htm
I'm not sure if the story allegedly from Mr Graham, prez of Caig rings
totally true. The "hazardous material" story seems to be a cover for
a financial arrangement that went awry.

I still have a small bottle of Deoxit R-100L. Over about 20 years,
I've only used half the bottle, mostly because I dispensed it by the
drop with a syringe. Q-tips and sprays are wasteful. However, for my
day to day stuff, I mix my own secret formula cleaner. It's secret
because I never mix the stuff accurately or twice the same way. I
also can't recall exactly what I tossed into the stew last. I think
it's mostly naphtha (Coleman lantern fuel), a little oleic acid, and
some automobile engine oil phosphorescent dye so I can see where I
slopped the stuff with a UV light. Or, maybe it was some solvent red
26 dye. Ask me again in about 5 years when I'm scheduled to run out
and need to mix another batch.

The r100 had a neat smell. Whatever I had left lost most of the smell.

Greg

 

[gregz]

Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote:

"Nutcase Kook " wrote:



Doesn't WD40 attack certain plastic,



** More paranoid drivel from the resident looney.

Yawwnnnnnnnnnnnn......


FYI:

None of the plastics used for switches, pots or connectors in electronics
is affected by using WD40 - even when soaked in the liquid.

In any case, the volatile part evaporates in a short time leaving behind
only a thin mineral oil residue.



.... Phil

I never had a problem with WD40 except it pretty much dries off. Never saw
it get sticky.

Greg

 

[Phil Allison]

GS wrote:

I never had a problem with WD40 except it pretty much dries off. Never saw
it get sticky.

** The oily residue can cause malfunctions in electronics - but only someone totally clueless would spray it all over the drive belts in a VCR or cassette player OR like one case I saw the tuning gang in a Quad FM3 tuner.

It took an enormous amount of cleaning to get ALL the oil off and restore the RF and oscillator stages to normal operation after the FM stations had moved nearly 20MHz down and right off the dial.

Hint: mineral oil had a dielectric constant of about 2, relative to air.



...... Phil