Electrical Contact Material

[F. Bertolazzi]

Andrew Gabriel:

Our field service staff had a sort of glass fiber propelling pencil
for that. It was like a very thick propelling pencil, but instead of
pencil lead, it had a dense mass of fine glass fibers, which wore
down over time.

Yes, it's an eraser for china ink used by achitects on tracing paper.
Very effective. Maybe too much.

 

[F. Bertolazzi]

John Fields:

Once upon a time, in a previous life, I used to design oceanographic
instruments and farmed out the interface between a submersible Sound
velocity/Temperature/Depth (STD) probe and the surface data
acquisition system.

Now I understand why you had to deal with drydocks. Usually those places
are populated with retarded monkeys, you did not seem to fit wery well
there (apart from the fact that you're an asshole. Now we're even, peace).

I've been on board one of those "oceanographic" vessels. Their base in the
west Mediterranean is in La Spezia, 100 km from here.

When we got the interface back it worked perfectly, and we took it to
Japan and installed it on the ship doing the STD profiling of the Sea
of Japan.

Yeah, sure, nothing to deal with russian submarines. ;-)

Unplug all of the interface's PCBs, rub down their contacts with an
eraser, plug them back in, and start a run.

A couple of weeks ago I "repaired" a friend's "boom box" the same way.

 

[F. Bertolazzi]

Rich Grise:

It didn't leave any rubber residue like a pencil eraser might have.

Nor metal residues where there were the contacts.

It's the same thing A. Gabriel was talking about.

I still have two of those, to be used in really difficult situations.

 

[F. Bertolazzi]

Rich Grise:

Or are you just another damned troll?

In either case, as I already said, this will solve all of his problems:
http://www.sayeducate.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/FireExtinguisherABC-154x300.jpg

 

[The Ghost In The Machine]

On Jan 16, 8:25 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sun, 16 Jan 2011 15:32:41 -0800 (PST), Searcher7





Search...@mail.con2.com> wrote:
On Jan 16, 11:21 am, George Herold <gher...@teachspin.com> wrote:
On Jan 16, 5:14 am, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sat, 15 Jan 2011 16:55:13 -0800 (PST), Searcher7

Search...@mail.con2.com> wrote:
As I mentioned, outside of data lines, voltages will be small(-5V,
+5V, +12V, +24V). And there will be no arcing anyway, because there
will be no current during either make or break. And though not air
tight, this will be an enclosed project. So paper will not do, because
I'm looking for something permanent. A stiff wiping material to put
inside the enclosure.

---
Sounds to me like you're dreaming up a mechanical nightmare, what with
having to put the paper in there, do a little wiping, and then remove
the paper before the contacts close.

Since you're doing dry switching, why not use something hermetically
sealed and totally impervious to dirt and oxidation, like a reed relay
or any of the myriad hermetically sealed miniature relays available?

---
JF

It's not at all clear what the OP is trying to do. Seems like a
little gold flash over his phosphur bronze might get rid of the oxide
issue?

George H.

Even with gold there is still the issue of having to clean the
contacts.

P.S.: I don't know if anyone else has this issue, but Google Groups
will not let me post in another thread here that I started called.
Making cables". I've attempting to post a response for the last three
days. Has anyone else had a problem like this?

Thanks.

Darren Harris
Staten Island, New York.

---
Google groups, as far as USENET is concerned, is nothing more than a
web based SPAM outlet looking for revenue, and bites.

If you're really interested in verbal freedom and want to say what you
want to say without your network provider getting on your case, then
blow off google groups and get yourself a real USENET provider.

---
JF

YOU SHOULD DO A LITTLE MORE RESEARCH ON WHAT USENET REALLY IS TODAY.
....EVERYONE THAT SPONSORED IT GAVE UP ON IT A WHILE BACK..EXCEPT
GOOGLE...
WHAT YOU HAVE IS A MIRROR READER FROM A PRIVATE ISP SUBSCRIPTION...
MY TAKE IS THE BOYS N GIRLS AT GOOGLE ARE JUST FOLLOWING BY EXAMPLE..
BUT ADJUSTING AND MODIFYING EVERY MOVE WITH THE NEW EXPERIENCES.

BUT WHAT DO I KNOW..I AM JUST A GHOST MINDING THIS FABULOUS MEDIUM

PATECUM

 

[The Ghost In The Machine]

On Jan 16, 10:23 pm, Rich Grise <ri...@example.net.invalid> wrote:

John Fields wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jan 2011 08:21:22 -0800 (PST), George Herold
On Jan 16, 5:14 am, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jan 2011 16:55:13 -0800 (PST), Searcher7

As I mentioned, outside of data lines, voltages will be small(-5V,
+5V, +12V, +24V). And there will be no arcing anyway, because there
will be no current during either make or break. And though not air
tight, this will be an enclosed project. So paper will not do, because
I'm looking for something permanent. A stiff wiping material to put
inside the enclosure.

Sounds to me like you're dreaming up a mechanical nightmare, what with
having to put the paper in there, do a little wiping, and then remove
the paper before the contacts close.

Since you're doing dry switching, why not use something hermetically
sealed and totally impervious to dirt and oxidation, like a reed relay
or any of the myriad hermetically sealed miniature relays available?

It's not at all clear what the OP is trying to do.  Seems like a
little gold flash over his phosphur bronze might get rid of the oxide
issue?
Maybe, maybe not.

If there's a wear issue, then the gold flash will just be wasted but
who knows?

The OP seems to be operating under "Loose Lips Sink Ships" so we may
never know what we helped him get to market.

To me, it sounds like a homework problem; I invented some contacts once;
actually, I rescued them from a retired relay and just changed the
mechanical configuration; this guy sounds like he's trying to reinvent the
whole concept of relay contacts, or either he's a troll, twitting us all.

Isn't it frustrating when someone comes in and asks a question, and answer
after answer, he says, "No, that's not it..."

After about three of those kind of responses, I just put them on my "ignore"
list. Sometimes I say, "Well, what the hell _do_ you want to hear?"

Cheers!
Rich

I DONT KNOW WHATS WORSE, WHAT YOU SAID, OR THE OPs GETTING A GOOD
RESPONSE BUT CLAMMING UP ABOUT IT, I CAN SENSE THE VICTORY GRIN ON HIS
N HER FACE......IT's ALL IN A DAYS WORK.
PAT ECUM

 

[The Ghost In The Machine]

On Jan 16, 10:27 pm, Rich Grise <ri...@example.net.invalid> wrote:

Searcher7 wrote:

Even with gold there is still the issue of having to clean the
contacts.

WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH? People have been doing
this stuff for decades! What's impelling you to reject every reasonable
answer you've gotten? Are you on a secret mission from an alien planet
or what?

Or are you just another damned troll?

Thanks,
Rich

I THINK HE JUST DOESN'T WANT TO DEAL WITH YOUR LEGAL/BILLINGS
DEPARTMENT, AFTER HE MAKES A KILLING WITH THE UPDATED TECHNOLOGY HE IS
DEVELOPING FROM OUR INPUT LOL...TEEHEEHEE.
AS IF ......

PAT ECUM

 

[The Ghost In The Machine]

On Jan 17, 6:54 am, "F. Bertolazzi" <TOGLIe...@MAIUSCOLEtdd.it> wrote:

John Fields:

Once upon a time, in a previous life, I used to design oceanographic
instruments and farmed out the interface between a submersible Sound
velocity/Temperature/Depth (STD) probe and the surface data
acquisition system.

Now I understand why you had to deal with drydocks. Usually those places
are populated with retarded monkeys, you did not seem to fit wery well
there (apart from the fact that you're an asshole. Now we're even, peace)..

I've been on board one of those "oceanographic" vessels. Their base in the
west Mediterranean is in La Spezia, 100 km from here.

When we got the interface back it worked perfectly, and we took it to
Japan and installed it on the ship doing the STD profiling of the Sea
of Japan.

Yeah, sure, nothing to deal with russian submarines. ;-)

Unplug all of the interface's PCBs, rub down their contacts with an
eraser, plug them back in, and start a run.

A couple of weeks ago I "repaired" a friend's "boom box" the same way.

TEEHEEHEE ... REFER HIM TO BILLINGS BERT......THAT''LL EVEN THINGS UP
EVEN BETTER.
LOL ... NOT REALLY BUT ... BWUAHAHAHAHA.... RIGHT ON !
PAT ECUM

 

[George Herold]

On Jan 16, 10:57 pm, Searcher7 <Search...@mail.con2.com> wrote:

On Jan 16, 10:27 pm, Rich Grise <ri...@example.net.invalid> wrote:

Searcher7 wrote:

Even with gold there is still the issue of having to clean the
contacts.

WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH? People have been doing
this stuff for decades! What's impelling you to reject every reasonable
answer you've gotten? Are you on a secret mission from an alien planet
or what?

Or are you just another damned troll?

Thanks,
Rich

Someone piss in your Corn Flakes?

I've said enough. And no. No one has answered my question. Why is it a
crime for me to look for a permanent non-conductive solid wiping
material to be used in an enclosure for Phosphor-Bronze contacts?

This thread should have ended way back when I said that I'll just have
to experiment to find such a material myself. (In fact, I may just be
forced to just design to use Phosphor-Bronze itself as the wiping
material, even though it is conductive).

There is no need for you to respond further.

Darren Harris
Staten Island, New York.

"There is no need for you to respond further."

What, are you kidding? We're like a bunch of old ladies, as soon as
you leave, we'll discuss all your faults.

In 'normal' contacts the wiping happens as the contact materials slide
together. The sliding is important. (At least that's my limited
understanding.) Have you tried talking to companies that make
switches for a living? I found the people at Grayhill helpful a while
back.

But by all means do your own experiments.

George H.

 

[Rich Grise]

F. Bertolazzi wrote:

Rich Grise:

It didn't leave any rubber residue like a pencil eraser might have.

Nor metal residues where there were the contacts.

Nah. We routinely used them on gold edge fingers, and I never saw one

take off any observable amount of gold.

But you don't use it like a grinder!

Thanks,
Rich

 

[F. Bertolazzi]

Rich Grise:

Nah. We routinely used them on gold edge fingers, and I never saw one
take off any observable amount of gold.

Until the connector has been dis- and re- connected a few times.

But you don't use it like a grinder!

I could. ;-)

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Baron wrote:

Rich Grise Inscribed thus:

F. Bertolazzi wrote:
Andrew Gabriel:

Back in the days of punched cards, field service engineers would
often use an (unpunched) card for this purpose. It was just the
right abrasiveness and stiffness for cleaning many things including
contact surfaces and disk head surfaces of that time.

But also to clean the build-up of magnetic material on floppy disc
readers' heads.

Do anybody here use a pencil (or even, for thick oxydations, pen)
eraser to clean contacts?

When I was an amusement machine repairmen, the company issued a thing
that the boss called a "fiberglass eraser" for cleaning edge connector
contacts.

It was just a bundle of stiff glass fibers in a plastic tube with a
screw to extend the bundle of fibers as they wore down, and it worked
a treat!

It didn't leave any rubber residue like a pencil eraser might have.

Cheers!
Rich

Its very much "Horses for Courses" ! The Glass brush that you refer to
are available right up to 2" diameter, and are very abrasive.

And will easily remove the precios metal plating from contacts. I
had to replace hundreds of switches that were 'cleaned' that way. Sure,
it's a quick fix, that doesn't last.


--
You can't fix stupid. You can't even put a band-aid on it, because it's
Teflon coated.

 

[Searcher7]

On Jan 17, 10:47 am, George Herold <gher...@teachspin.com> wrote:

On Jan 16, 10:57 pm, Searcher7 <Search...@mail.con2.com> wrote:



On Jan 16, 10:27 pm, Rich Grise <ri...@example.net.invalid> wrote:

Searcher7 wrote:

Even with gold there is still the issue of having to clean the
contacts.

WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH? People have been doing
this stuff for decades! What's impelling you to reject every reasonable
answer you've gotten? Are you on a secret mission from an alien planet
or what?

Or are you just another damned troll?

Thanks,
Rich

Someone piss in your Corn Flakes?

I've said enough. And no. No one has answered my question. Why is it a
crime for me to look for a permanent non-conductive solid wiping
material to be used in an enclosure for Phosphor-Bronze contacts?

This thread should have ended way back when I said that I'll just have
to experiment to find such a material myself. (In fact, I may just be
forced to just design to use Phosphor-Bronze itself as the wiping
material, even though it is conductive).

There is no need for you to respond further.

Darren Harris
Staten Island, New York.

"There is no need for you to respond further."

What, are you kidding?  We're like a bunch of old ladies, as soon as
you leave, we'll discuss all your faults.

Ha! That sounds about right.

I had mentioned that drawing a picture was the only way and I'm not
going to do that. I've given enough details and then some.

What gets me is that certain individuals continue to dismiss the
possibility that what someone is attempting to build doesn't exist. Or
exist within the needed parameters for a specific project. They don't
comprehend that contacts may have to be a specific size. They may be a
specific dimension. They may have to wipe at specific times. And they
may have to come together a specific way. And they may have to do this
within a certain area. All this is lost on them and as a result they
keep giving ideas for contacts they've seen or know about already on
the market. The fact that someone may need something else than what is
available is lost on them. (Even when they are told this).

No extra details will change a good answer if there is one. So the
response I get for not drawing a picture to satiate their curiosity is
to accuse me of not giving enough info. What I want to do is
irrelevant to whether or not material "A" will wipe material "B".

So I'll let you "old ladies" continue to do your thing.

Darren Harris
Staten Island, New York.

 

[Josepi]

LOL...Yeah, what he said... "burnishing"


"Rich Grise" <richg@example.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:igt4s1$46f$2@news.eternal-september.org...
In English, "burnishing."

Cheers!
Rich


Josepi wrote:
If you want to actaull wipe a contact clean use isopropylene or a good
isopropyl alcohiol with low water or oil content and a good lint free
cloth wrapped around a contact burning tool, or just a burning tool
designed for that usage.

 

[Josepi]

It would appear the OP does not really know what he wants, cannot explain
it, and it "rolls" each time he learns a little more about what he wants by
reading posts.


"George Herold" <gherold@teachspin.com> wrote in message
news:13cf15ba-3fe1-46d9-8965-c0bb602f396d@l7g2000vbv.googlegroups.com...
It's not at all clear what the OP is trying to do. Seems like a
little gold flash over his phosphur bronze might get rid of the oxide
issue?

George H.

 

[Josepi]

He doesn't know or is trolling for the question to ask.


"Rich Grise" <richg@example.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:ih0cvg$8lg$2@news.eternal-september.org...

WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH? People have been doing
this stuff for decades! What's impelling you to reject every reasonable
answer you've gotten? Are you on a secret mission from an alien planet
or what?

Or are you just another damned troll?

Thanks,
Rich

 

[The Ghost In The Machine]

On Jan 19, 12:02 am, "Josepi" <J...@easynews.calm> wrote:

It would appear the OP does not really know what he wants, cannot explain
it, and it "rolls" each time he learns a little more about what he wants by
reading posts.

"George Herold" <gher...@teachspin.com> wrote in message

news:13cf15ba-3fe1-46d9-8965-c0bb602f396d@l7g2000vbv.googlegroups.com...
It's not at all clear what the OP is trying to do.  Seems like a
little gold flash over his phosphur bronze might get rid of the oxide
issue?

George H.

GOOD SHOW JOSEPITRI.
HE'S PROBABLY CASHING IN ON OUR COLLECTIVE EFFORTS.
;\.....LET'S SEND HIM A BILL.....;/

PAT ECUM

 

[Jasen Betts]

On 2011-01-18, Searcher7 <Searcher7@mail.con2.com> wrote:

What gets me is that certain individuals continue to dismiss the
possibility that what someone is attempting to build doesn't exist.

so far I've seen no definiate indication that contacts are even the
right solution.

--
⚂⚃ 100% natural

 

[John Fields]

On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 14:41:44 -0800 (PST), Searcher7
<Searcher7@mail.con2.com> wrote:

On Jan 17, 10:47 am, George Herold <gher...@teachspin.com> wrote:
On Jan 16, 10:57 pm, Searcher7 <Search...@mail.con2.com> wrote:



On Jan 16, 10:27 pm, Rich Grise <ri...@example.net.invalid> wrote:

Searcher7 wrote:

Even with gold there is still the issue of having to clean the
contacts.

WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH? People have been doing
this stuff for decades! What's impelling you to reject every reasonable
answer you've gotten? Are you on a secret mission from an alien planet
or what?

Or are you just another damned troll?

Thanks,
Rich

Someone piss in your Corn Flakes?

I've said enough. And no. No one has answered my question. Why is it a
crime for me to look for a permanent non-conductive solid wiping
material to be used in an enclosure for Phosphor-Bronze contacts?

This thread should have ended way back when I said that I'll just have
to experiment to find such a material myself. (In fact, I may just be
forced to just design to use Phosphor-Bronze itself as the wiping
material, even though it is conductive).

There is no need for you to respond further.

Darren Harris
Staten Island, New York.

"There is no need for you to respond further."

What, are you kidding?  We're like a bunch of old ladies, as soon as
you leave, we'll discuss all your faults.

Ha! That sounds about right.

---
Well, of course.

Since you've found it necessary to respond to a response to which you
said needed no response, you've put yourself in the position of being,
at best, two-faced.
---

I had mentioned that drawing a picture was the only way and I'm not
going to do that. I've given enough details and then some.

---
All you've done, it seems to me, is been a leech and, since you
haven't been willing to divulge any details about what you're trying
to do, you're mining data, for free, and abrogating the payback
responsibility, even if it's just the satisfaction those who are
trying to help you would like to get for their effort.
---

What gets me is that certain individuals continue to dismiss the
possibility that what someone is attempting to build doesn't exist.

---
I didn't get that at all, all I got was that you've been asked, more
than once, what it is you're trying to do, and you've always declined
to say what thyat is.

I don't have a problem with that, since if what you're doing is novel
and you want to protect it, the best way is to stay tight-lipped about
it.

At the same time though, you berate those are trying to help you, but
can't because of your reticence to divulge information, and I don't
think that's fair.
---

Or exist within the needed parameters for a specific project. They don't
comprehend that contacts may have to be a specific size. They may be a
specific dimension. They may have to wipe at specific times. And they
may have to come together a specific way. And they may have to do this
within a certain area. All this is lost on them and as a result they
keep giving ideas for contacts they've seen or know about already on
the market. The fact that someone may need something else than what is
available is lost on them. (Even when they are told this).

---
But, if you don't state what it is you want to do, and tie down all of
the variables you mention, what else can you expect?

After all, any "solutions" proffered are going to be based on, as you
say, previous problems.

If your problem is unique, then without knowing what it is, how can
anyone help you?
---

No extra details will change a good answer if there is one.

---
That's true, but the likelihood of your getting a good answer, with
the paucity of dertails you've supplied, is probably pretty close to
random, so your reticence to supply data is why you're still in the
dark, and that ignorance certainly can't be blamed on those of us who
have tried to help you.
---

So the response I get for not drawing a picture to satiate their curiosity is
to accuse me of not giving enough info.

---
It's not a question of satiating curiosity, it's a question of having
enough data to work with in order to supply you with a cogent answer.

You were the one who asked for help, so if those of us who wanted to
help you needed more information, why would you not supply it?
---

What I want to do is
irrelevant to whether or not material "A" will wipe material "B".

---
Ah, then, your original post was just bait and you're basically just a
low-grade troll?
---

So I'll let you "old ladies" continue to do your thing.

Darren Harris
Staten Island, New York.

---
As if you had a choice, you presumptuous ass.

---
JF

 

[F. Bertolazzi]

John Fields:

Since you've found it necessary to respond to a response to which you
said needed no response, you've put yourself in the position of being,
at best, two-faced.

Only one face. Troll. The only cure is
http://www.sayeducate.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/FireExtinguisherABC-154x300.jpg

All you've done, it seems to me, is been a leech and, since you
haven't been willing to divulge any details about what you're trying
to do, you're mining data, for free

Optimist. He's just a trivial idler.