A Radio forum. RadioBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » RadioBanter forum » rec.radio.amateur » Antenna
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Coil Dope



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old February 9th 09, 05:47 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Spin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 31
Default Coil Dope

I read that old 78 LP's broken into pieces & mixed with a particular solvent
was used as coil dope. Does anybody remember which solvent was used & how
affective it was?


  #2  
Old February 9th 09, 06:29 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Jeff Liebermann[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,084
Default Coil Dope

On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 16:47:15 GMT, "Spin"
wrote:

I read that old 78 LP's broken into pieces & mixed with a particular solvent
was used as coil dope. Does anybody remember which solvent was used & how
affective it was?


Coil dope can be made from polystyrene packing peanuts dissolved in
acetone. Q-Dope is some kind of cellulose polymer broken down in the
same solvents. If you're planning on making your own, it does take
several days and plenty of agitation to produce a suitable sticky
mess.

The very old 78 rpm records were originally made from Bakelite, which
is quite resistant to chlorinated hydrocarbon solvents. During WWII,
Vinyl records appeared as a substitute for Bakelite. It's easy to
tell the difference. Bakelite is thermosetting plastic and is
unaffected by acetone. Vinyl is thermoplastic and is softened by
acetone.

My guess is that whomever suggested dissolving records wanted to trick
you into breaking your 78 rpm records. (Note: I'm sloooooly
transcribbling my record collection to various digital formats).

You don't state what you're trying to accomplish. If it's cleaning
the Q-Dope off old coils, acetone softens it nicely. Wipe clean and
you're done.


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D
http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
  #3  
Old February 9th 09, 07:51 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Dave Platt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 464
Default Coil Dope

I read that old 78 LP's broken into pieces & mixed with a particular solvent
was used as coil dope. Does anybody remember which solvent was used & how
affective it was?


78s were often made of shellac, and the usual solvent for shellac is
denatured alcohol. I believe that some other 78s were made from
cellulose acetate... for this material I believe that acetone would be
a usable solvent.

My understanding is that commercial Q-dope uses polystyrene, dissolved
in a suitable solvent.

According to an article by Barry Ornitz WA4VQZ (the text is at
http://yarchive.net/electr/coil_dope.html), a very acceptable coil
dope can be home-brewed by dissolving ordinary polystyrene "packing
peanuts" in either toluene or acetone (the latter is less toxic).

--
Dave Platt AE6EO
Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!
  #4  
Old February 10th 09, 12:09 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Clifford Heath
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18
Default Coil Dope

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
Coil dope can be made from polystyrene packing peanuts dissolved in
acetone.


Beware; this produces significant quantities of styrene monomer,
a known carcinogen.
  #5  
Old February 10th 09, 01:22 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
David G. Nagel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 99
Default Coil Dope

Clifford Heath wrote:
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
Coil dope can be made from polystyrene packing peanuts dissolved in
acetone.


Beware; this produces significant quantities of styrene monomer,
a known carcinogen.

only in Canadian rats
  #6  
Old February 10th 09, 05:14 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Jeff Liebermann[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,084
Default Coil Dope

On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 10:09:17 +1100, Clifford Heath
wrote:

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
Coil dope can be made from polystyrene packing peanuts dissolved in
acetone.


Beware; this produces significant quantities of styrene monomer,
a known carcinogen.


That seems to be debatable:
http://www.styrenemonomer.org/3.5.html
Of course, that comes from the Styrene Products Association, which
might be slightly biased.



--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558
#
http://802.11junk.com
#
http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS
  #7  
Old February 10th 09, 07:07 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Dr. Barry L. Ornitz[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11
Default Coil Dope

"Dave Platt" wrote in message
...
I read that old 78 LP's broken into pieces & mixed with a particular
solvent
was used as coil dope. Does anybody remember which solvent was used & how
affective it was?


78s were often made of shellac, and the usual solvent for shellac is
denatured alcohol. I believe that some other 78s were made from
cellulose acetate... for this material I believe that acetone would be
a usable solvent.

My understanding is that commercial Q-dope uses polystyrene, dissolved
in a suitable solvent.


Toluene.

According to an article by Barry Ornitz WA4VQZ (the text is at
http://yarchive.net/electr/coil_dope.html), a very acceptable coil
dope can be home-brewed by dissolving ordinary polystyrene "packing
peanuts" in either toluene or acetone (the latter is less toxic).


Thanks for mentioning this archive Dave. I strongly suggest that before
anyone tries making their own Q-dope, they read ALL the safety information
given there. And yes it really does take several weeks for the "cotton
balls" to fully dissolve.

What I think that "Spin" was referring to was that early pressings were
made from cellulose acetate. Acetone would be the solvent of choice here.
I was not aware that phenol formaldehyde thermoset resins were ever used
for records, but if you find any, they won't dissolve in anything!

As for the worry that when Styrofoam is dissolved in a solvent, styrene is
released - forget about it. Styrene is rather volatile and has a VERY
distinctive odor. You would smell it if more than a trace amount were left
in the peanuts. Polystyrene does not depolymerize by dissolving it in a
solvent.

Devcon's Duco Cement is nitrocellulose dissolved in acetone with a little
camphor as a plasticizer and with small amounts of isopropanol and
1-methoxy-2-propanol acetate thrown in for good measure. If you only need
a few ounces of Q-dope, Duco Cement is a suitable substitute.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL, dipped a number of coils in various materials (RTV
silicone, epoxy cement, Q-dope, hot melt adhesive, etc.) a while back and
then measured their losses with a Q-meter. If Roy can find his old
article, perhaps he can post it again.

--
73, Dr. Barry L. Ornitz WA4VZQ

[transpose digits to reply]

  #8  
Old February 10th 09, 11:53 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Roy Lewallen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,374
Default Coil Dope

Dr. Barry L. Ornitz wrote:
. . .
Roy Lewallen, W7EL, dipped a number of coils in various materials (RTV
silicone, epoxy cement, Q-dope, hot melt adhesive, etc.) a while back
and then measured their losses with a Q-meter. If Roy can find his old
article, perhaps he can post it again.


Great memory, Barry! It was posted on Dec. 16, 1998. A copy of the
original posting follows. I didn't do any other experiments as I said I
would, and I've gotten very little confirming or contradictory feedback.

I recall you and some other folks posting some very good information
about RTV, the general thrust of which was that there's a very wide
range of formulations, so results might vary a lot from what I measured.

---------------

Spurred by recent comments and questions on this newsgroup, I made
some inductors last weekend and measured them. Results follow.

Toroidal Inductor Measurements

Roy Lewallen, W7EL
December, 1998


Test Equipment

Inductance: GR 1606-A impedance meter. Stray series impedance was
removed by initial calibration. Stray shunt capacitance was separately
measured and removed mathematically. Repeatability is within about +/-
2%. No attempt was made to establish accuracy.

Q: A home-made fixture was used. This is simply an air-variable
capacitor which the inductor is connected across. Coupling into and
out of the fixture with signal generator and oscilloscope is done with
very small capacitors. The Q is calculated from the center frequency
and 3 dB bandwidth. Use of frequency counter, built-in oscilloscope
voltmeter, and switchable 3 dB pad allow repeatability of about +/-
2%. Checks against a commercial Q meter show agreement within a few
percent.

All measurements were made at 10 MHz.

Experiment 1: Coatings

Several identical inductors were fabricated, then coated with various
compounds. Inductance and Q were measured before and after coating.
The inductors were wound on Micrometals T-50-6 cores (Carbonyl SF
material, relative permeability 8.5) with 25 turns of #22 wire. This
just fits on a single layer.

Ind. # Uncoated Coated Coating
L(uH) Q L(uH) Q

1 2.54 281 2.54 284 None (control)
2 2.52 286 2.54 218 Duco cement
3 2.51 267 2.52 265 Standard RTV
4 2.52 280
5 2.54 279 2.55 255 Clear hot melt glue
6 2.48 268 2.55 164 "Sealing tape"
7 2.51 283 2.51 262 Paraffin
8 2.55 262
9 2.56 281 2.59 278 GE Silicone II
10 2.50 283
11 2.51 277

Notes (by inductor number):

Unless otherwise noted, coatings covered the entire core and winding,
extending more than a wire diameter beyond the outside of the wire,
and the center of the core was filled.

Inductances within about 0.3 uH and Q's within less than about 5
should be considered equal.

1. Inductor Q was measured several times over several days to
establish repeatability. Results were 280, 281, 283, 286, 284. (The
apparent trend is interesting, but not conclusive.)
2. Devcon Duco(R) Cement, allowed to dry for 24 hours. Although a
generous coating was applied, the dried coating was less than a wire
diameter in thickness, and the center of the core wasn't filled.
3. Dap Dow Corning 100% Silicone Sealant, Clear, allowed to cure for
24 hours. This is standard acetic-acid (vinegar) curing RTV.
5. Stanley All Purpose GlueSticks, claimed set time 25-30 seconds.
These are nearly clear, translucent white, and not tan or brown
colored.
6. This was some stuff I got surplus. It's a black, sticky, rubbery
compound something like Coax Seal, but may be of entirely different
composition. It's in the form of a thick tape. It's soluble in naphtha
(and the solution dyes everything black it gets on), but acetone
doesn't touch it.
7. Household canning paraffin. (I don't know what it's called in
Britain, but I'm not referring to the liquid -- kerosene to us -- you
call paraffin. This is a common wax made from petroleum.)
9. GE Silicone II Household Glue & Seal, Clear. This is a
non-acetic-acid curing RTV. Allowed to cure for two days. Still just a
little soft even after this much curing.
11. This is the same core as #6. After the coated #6 was measured, the
core was cleaned, the winding cut off, the core further cleaned, then
a new winding put on.

Comments:

I had made some measurements years ago, but couldn't locate the
results. I recall that standard RTV was poor (lowered Q noticeably)
but that an industrial non-acetic-acid curing RTV was good. The
results with standard RTV in this test were striking. Either a) the
formulation of standard RTV has changed over the years, b) there are
major differences among brands, or c) my memory is faulty.

I recall from my earlier tests that epoxy was quite poor, but this has
to be qualified after the experience with RTV. There's a huge number
of different types of epoxy, and some may be much worse than others. I
might test some in the future, but didn't during this test.

I intend to test Q-dope in the future, but didn't have any on hand.

Conclusions:

Of the materials tested, both types of RTV stand out as having a
negligible effect on inductor Q. Hot melt glue and paraffin have a
small enough effect that they should be tolerable for many
applications. Duco cement seriously degrades Q, even in a much thinner
layer than the other coatings. The "sealing tape", tested out of
curiosity, shows just how great a degradation can be caused by a poor
coating.

None of the coatings made much of a change in apparent inductance.
This implies that the reduction in Q is due primarily to dielectric
loss rather than simple increase in capacitance due to the material's
dielectric constant.

Note the difference in inductance and Q between inductors 6 and 11,
which were wound on the same core. Apparently physical differences in
the windings (perhaps such as tightness and conformance to the core,
or uniformity of turn spacing) are a major contributor to differences
between inductors. All the cores used in the test were ordered at the
same time, so they may have come from the same batch and have
relatively little variation. On the basis of just the comparison
between numbers 6 and 11, it's entirely possible that most of the
variation between inductors in this experiment is due to winding
differences. The variation might be less if smaller wire with less
stiffness is used.

Experiment 2: Turn Spacing

I believe it's well established that even a partial second layer can
greatly reduce the Q of a toroidal inductor. But I had recently heard
that optimum Q is achieved when the first layer isn't quite full, but
rather has about a 30 degree gap in the winding, to reduce the
capacitance between winding ends. To test this, I wound 23 turns of
#22 wire on a T-50-6 core, and measured the Q with the turns pushed
close together to make a gap (of about 30 degrees), and then spread to
evenly distribute the turns completely around the core. Measured 10
MHz Q's were 272 and 284, respectively. (Inductances were 2.21 and
2.11 uH.) This one test doesn't by any means exhaust all the
possibilities of core geometries, permeabilities, number of turns, and
wire size, all of which may play a role. But if there's any advantage
to leaving a gap, I believe it would be a small one. And in at least
one case, it's slightly better not to.

Another test was run using 10 turns of the same size wire on the same
core. With the turns pushed together (the winding covering less than
half the core), Q was 213, L was 841 nH. With the turns spread evenly
around the core, Q was 209 but the L had dropped to 505 nH. I reasoned
that a more fair comparison would be with a winding of about the same
inductance as the original close-spaced one. This required 15 turns
when distributed around the core, and resulted in a Q of 257 and L of
924 uH. Here again, the Q is best when the turns are evenly
distributed. Note that type 6 powdered iron has a very low relative
permeability (8.5), so results might be different with
higher-permeability materials. However, this is the material I usually
use for high-Q inductors at HF, so I'm most interested in how it's
affected.

Experiment 3: "Regressive" Winding

In the past, I've found what I thought was a moderate improvement in Q
by "regressively" winding an inductor. To do this, you wind half the
turns in the normal manner. Then you pass the wire through the hole,
but to the opposite side of the inductor (with it ending up beside the
first turn), then completing the winding from the vicinity of the
first turn back toward the origination of the crossover. The result is
an inductor with the two leads coming from points directly opposite
each other. Stray capacitance is allegedly reduced by keeping the ends
of the winding apart. An inductor wound in this manner with 25 turns
of #22 wire measured Q = 285, L = 2.48 uH. This Q is on the high side,
and the L on the low side, of the uncoated inductors measured in
Experiment 1. I didn't try comparing with a standard winding on the
same core, since the same number of turns wound on the same core at
different times (e.g., inductors 6 and 11 in Experiment 1) were shown
to come out differently from each other. My conclusion is that any Q
improvement due to "regressive" winding is slight. Another claim for
"regressive" winding is that it eliminates the "single turn" effect of
toroidal inductors. A normal toroid will couple into its surroundings
as though it consists of a single turn the size of the core. In the
"regressively" wound inductor, there are two half-turns in opposite
directions, so coupling should be reduced. I haven't tested this in
any way, but it may be an argument in favor of the method. The
relatively long wire of the crossover turn would contribute to
coupling, however.

I'll undertake more experiments and measurements as time permits. I'd
love to hear from anyone who has made either supporting or
contradictory quantitative measurements.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL
  #9  
Old February 10th 09, 05:36 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
JB[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 543
Default Coil Dope


"Roy Lewallen" wrote in message
treetonline...
Dr. Barry L. Ornitz wrote:
. . .
Roy Lewallen, W7EL, dipped a number of coils in various materials (RTV
silicone, epoxy cement, Q-dope, hot melt adhesive, etc.) a while back
and then measured their losses with a Q-meter. If Roy can find his old
article, perhaps he can post it again.


Great memory, Barry! It was posted on Dec. 16, 1998. A copy of the
original posting follows. I didn't do any other experiments as I said I
would, and I've gotten very little confirming or contradictory feedback.

I recall you and some other folks posting some very good information
about RTV, the general thrust of which was that there's a very wide
range of formulations, so results might vary a lot from what I measured.

---------------

Spurred by recent comments and questions on this newsgroup, I made
some inductors last weekend and measured them. Results follow.

Toroidal Inductor Measurements

Roy Lewallen, W7EL
December, 1998


Test Equipment

Inductance: GR 1606-A impedance meter. Stray series impedance was
removed by initial calibration. Stray shunt capacitance was separately
measured and removed mathematically. Repeatability is within about +/-
2%. No attempt was made to establish accuracy.

Q: A home-made fixture was used. This is simply an air-variable
capacitor which the inductor is connected across. Coupling into and
out of the fixture with signal generator and oscilloscope is done with
very small capacitors. The Q is calculated from the center frequency
and 3 dB bandwidth. Use of frequency counter, built-in oscilloscope
voltmeter, and switchable 3 dB pad allow repeatability of about +/-
2%. Checks against a commercial Q meter show agreement within a few
percent.

All measurements were made at 10 MHz.

Experiment 1: Coatings

Several identical inductors were fabricated, then coated with various
compounds. Inductance and Q were measured before and after coating.
The inductors were wound on Micrometals T-50-6 cores (Carbonyl SF
material, relative permeability 8.5) with 25 turns of #22 wire. This
just fits on a single layer.

Ind. # Uncoated Coated Coating
L(uH) Q L(uH) Q

1 2.54 281 2.54 284 None (control)
2 2.52 286 2.54 218 Duco cement
3 2.51 267 2.52 265 Standard RTV
4 2.52 280
5 2.54 279 2.55 255 Clear hot melt glue
6 2.48 268 2.55 164 "Sealing tape"
7 2.51 283 2.51 262 Paraffin
8 2.55 262
9 2.56 281 2.59 278 GE Silicone II
10 2.50 283
11 2.51 277

Notes (by inductor number):

Unless otherwise noted, coatings covered the entire core and winding,
extending more than a wire diameter beyond the outside of the wire,
and the center of the core was filled.

Inductances within about 0.3 uH and Q's within less than about 5
should be considered equal.

1. Inductor Q was measured several times over several days to
establish repeatability. Results were 280, 281, 283, 286, 284. (The
apparent trend is interesting, but not conclusive.)
2. Devcon Duco(R) Cement, allowed to dry for 24 hours. Although a
generous coating was applied, the dried coating was less than a wire
diameter in thickness, and the center of the core wasn't filled.
3. Dap Dow Corning 100% Silicone Sealant, Clear, allowed to cure for
24 hours. This is standard acetic-acid (vinegar) curing RTV.
5. Stanley All Purpose GlueSticks, claimed set time 25-30 seconds.
These are nearly clear, translucent white, and not tan or brown
colored.
6. This was some stuff I got surplus. It's a black, sticky, rubbery
compound something like Coax Seal, but may be of entirely different
composition. It's in the form of a thick tape. It's soluble in naphtha
(and the solution dyes everything black it gets on), but acetone
doesn't touch it.
7. Household canning paraffin. (I don't know what it's called in
Britain, but I'm not referring to the liquid -- kerosene to us -- you
call paraffin. This is a common wax made from petroleum.)
9. GE Silicone II Household Glue & Seal, Clear. This is a
non-acetic-acid curing RTV. Allowed to cure for two days. Still just a
little soft even after this much curing.
11. This is the same core as #6. After the coated #6 was measured, the
core was cleaned, the winding cut off, the core further cleaned, then
a new winding put on.

Comments:

I had made some measurements years ago, but couldn't locate the
results. I recall that standard RTV was poor (lowered Q noticeably)
but that an industrial non-acetic-acid curing RTV was good. The
results with standard RTV in this test were striking. Either a) the
formulation of standard RTV has changed over the years, b) there are
major differences among brands, or c) my memory is faulty.

I recall from my earlier tests that epoxy was quite poor, but this has
to be qualified after the experience with RTV. There's a huge number
of different types of epoxy, and some may be much worse than others. I
might test some in the future, but didn't during this test.

I intend to test Q-dope in the future, but didn't have any on hand.

Conclusions:

Of the materials tested, both types of RTV stand out as having a
negligible effect on inductor Q. Hot melt glue and paraffin have a
small enough effect that they should be tolerable for many
applications. Duco cement seriously degrades Q, even in a much thinner
layer than the other coatings. The "sealing tape", tested out of
curiosity, shows just how great a degradation can be caused by a poor
coating.

None of the coatings made much of a change in apparent inductance.
This implies that the reduction in Q is due primarily to dielectric
loss rather than simple increase in capacitance due to the material's
dielectric constant.

Note the difference in inductance and Q between inductors 6 and 11,
which were wound on the same core. Apparently physical differences in
the windings (perhaps such as tightness and conformance to the core,
or uniformity of turn spacing) are a major contributor to differences
between inductors. All the cores used in the test were ordered at the
same time, so they may have come from the same batch and have
relatively little variation. On the basis of just the comparison
between numbers 6 and 11, it's entirely possible that most of the
variation between inductors in this experiment is due to winding
differences. The variation might be less if smaller wire with less
stiffness is used.

Experiment 2: Turn Spacing

I believe it's well established that even a partial second layer can
greatly reduce the Q of a toroidal inductor. But I had recently heard
that optimum Q is achieved when the first layer isn't quite full, but
rather has about a 30 degree gap in the winding, to reduce the
capacitance between winding ends. To test this, I wound 23 turns of
#22 wire on a T-50-6 core, and measured the Q with the turns pushed
close together to make a gap (of about 30 degrees), and then spread to
evenly distribute the turns completely around the core. Measured 10
MHz Q's were 272 and 284, respectively. (Inductances were 2.21 and
2.11 uH.) This one test doesn't by any means exhaust all the
possibilities of core geometries, permeabilities, number of turns, and
wire size, all of which may play a role. But if there's any advantage
to leaving a gap, I believe it would be a small one. And in at least
one case, it's slightly better not to.

Another test was run using 10 turns of the same size wire on the same
core. With the turns pushed together (the winding covering less than
half the core), Q was 213, L was 841 nH. With the turns spread evenly
around the core, Q was 209 but the L had dropped to 505 nH. I reasoned
that a more fair comparison would be with a winding of about the same
inductance as the original close-spaced one. This required 15 turns
when distributed around the core, and resulted in a Q of 257 and L of
924 uH. Here again, the Q is best when the turns are evenly
distributed. Note that type 6 powdered iron has a very low relative
permeability (8.5), so results might be different with
higher-permeability materials. However, this is the material I usually
use for high-Q inductors at HF, so I'm most interested in how it's
affected.

Experiment 3: "Regressive" Winding

In the past, I've found what I thought was a moderate improvement in Q
by "regressively" winding an inductor. To do this, you wind half the
turns in the normal manner. Then you pass the wire through the hole,
but to the opposite side of the inductor (with it ending up beside the
first turn), then completing the winding from the vicinity of the
first turn back toward the origination of the crossover. The result is
an inductor with the two leads coming from points directly opposite
each other. Stray capacitance is allegedly reduced by keeping the ends
of the winding apart. An inductor wound in this manner with 25 turns
of #22 wire measured Q = 285, L = 2.48 uH. This Q is on the high side,
and the L on the low side, of the uncoated inductors measured in
Experiment 1. I didn't try comparing with a standard winding on the
same core, since the same number of turns wound on the same core at
different times (e.g., inductors 6 and 11 in Experiment 1) were shown
to come out differently from each other. My conclusion is that any Q
improvement due to "regressive" winding is slight. Another claim for
"regressive" winding is that it eliminates the "single turn" effect of
toroidal inductors. A normal toroid will couple into its surroundings
as though it consists of a single turn the size of the core. In the
"regressively" wound inductor, there are two half-turns in opposite
directions, so coupling should be reduced. I haven't tested this in
any way, but it may be an argument in favor of the method. The
relatively long wire of the crossover turn would contribute to
coupling, however.

I'll undertake more experiments and measurements as time permits. I'd
love to hear from anyone who has made either supporting or
contradictory quantitative measurements.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL


I seem to recall reading that Styrene had the best dielectric properties of
the plastics.

I did some similar experiments building 1/4 wave spikes in a BNC connector
for 2m HTs and found that glues would heat up from the RF. Clear epoxy
worked best and JB weld, Pipe dope, Silicone sealers and Hot glue were poor
performers. I still have some fiberglass tape that I use for torroids.

  #10  
Old February 10th 09, 10:01 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Clifford Heath
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18
Default Coil Dope

Jim Higgins wrote:
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 10:09:17 +1100, Clifford Heath
Beware; this produces significant quantities of styrene monomer,
a known carcinogen.

No it doesn't. It's purely a dissolution process with no chemical
reaction.


Glad to hear it - I forget who scared me off using a batch I made
and held on to, unable to decide how to even dispose of it.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Mope the dope, when are you giving head at a truckstop next? KEYKLOWNS EAT DRIPPING DOGGIE DICKS CB 2 May 11th 04 01:15 AM
Not only is Mope the dope a coward... KEYKLOWNS EAT DRIPPING DOGGIE DICKS CB 0 May 10th 04 02:43 PM
Source for Red-X Corona Dope Needed Space Charge Boatanchors 2 January 8th 04 12:11 AM
Why They Call it "Dope" King Pineapple Shortwave 0 July 22nd 03 12:10 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:54 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2014 RadioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.