| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
REMOVING ENAMEL COATING
Does anybody have the name of the substance that was sold years ago for
removing the enamel coating from wires, or maybe the name of something new? You would soak the wire in it and it would soften the coating and then you just wiped the goop off the wire. 73's |
REMOVING ENAMEL COATING
In article ,
W3CQH wrote: Does anybody have the name of the substance that was sold years ago for removing the enamel coating from wires, or maybe the name of something new? You would soak the wire in it and it would soften the coating and then you just wiped the goop off the wire. I think you're referring to GC Electronics Strip-X. Doesn't seem to be on the market these days, as best as I can tell. I found a MSDS which states that it's 70% methylene chloride, 25% cresol (isomers of cresylic acid), around 5% ammonia, plus some wax and thickening agents. One poster in an earlier thread stated that it was designed to work with Formvar insulation, and might not work as well on the newer Polythermaleze insulation. There's a paint-and-finish stripper of a similar name (Klean-Strip Strip-X) available these days. Like the wire-"Strip-X" it contains methylene chloride, but it has no cresol or ammonia. Its other ingredients include toluene, xylene, and methanol, plus a thickener (it's relatively goopy and would probably have to be wiped off of the wire using a paper towel or Q-tip or something like that). These chemicals all come with fire- and health-hazard warnings... if you use 'em, do so with proper care and precautions! -- 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! |
REMOVING ENAMEL COATING
Dave Platt wrote:
In article , W3CQH wrote: Does anybody have the name of the substance that was sold years ago for removing the enamel coating from wires, or maybe the name of something new? You would soak the wire in it and it would soften the coating and then you just wiped the goop off the wire. I think you're referring to GC Electronics Strip-X. Doesn't seem to be on the market these days, as best as I can tell. I found a MSDS which states that it's 70% methylene chloride, 25% cresol (isomers of cresylic acid), around 5% ammonia, plus some wax and thickening agents. One poster in an earlier thread stated that it was designed to work with Formvar insulation, and might not work as well on the newer Polythermaleze insulation. There's a paint-and-finish stripper of a similar name (Klean-Strip Strip-X) available these days. Like the wire-"Strip-X" it contains methylene chloride, but it has no cresol or ammonia. Its other ingredients include toluene, xylene, and methanol, plus a thickener (it's relatively goopy and would probably have to be wiped off of the wire using a paper towel or Q-tip or something like that). These chemicals all come with fire- and health-hazard warnings... if you use 'em, do so with proper care and precautions! I just put a glob of solder on the soldering iron tip and dunk the enameled wire into it until the enamel melts and the solder tins the end of the wire. Been doing that for over 20 years now...seems to work A-OK. Scott N0EDV |
REMOVING ENAMEL COATING
"Scott" wrote in message .. . Dave Platt wrote: In article , W3CQH wrote: Does anybody have the name of the substance that was sold years ago for removing the enamel coating from wires, or maybe the name of something new? You would soak the wire in it and it would soften the coating and then you just wiped the goop off the wire. I think you're referring to GC Electronics Strip-X. Doesn't seem to be on the market these days, as best as I can tell. I found a MSDS which states that it's 70% methylene chloride, 25% cresol (isomers of cresylic acid), around 5% ammonia, plus some wax and thickening agents. One poster in an earlier thread stated that it was designed to work with Formvar insulation, and might not work as well on the newer Polythermaleze insulation. There's a paint-and-finish stripper of a similar name (Klean-Strip Strip-X) available these days. Like the wire-"Strip-X" it contains methylene chloride, but it has no cresol or ammonia. Its other ingredients include toluene, xylene, and methanol, plus a thickener (it's relatively goopy and would probably have to be wiped off of the wire using a paper towel or Q-tip or something like that). These chemicals all come with fire- and health-hazard warnings... if you use 'em, do so with proper care and precautions! I just put a glob of solder on the soldering iron tip and dunk the enameled wire into it until the enamel melts and the solder tins the end of the wire. Been doing that for over 20 years now...seems to work A-OK. Scott N0EDV Thanks Scott - I forgot that technique - Yes it does work - sometimes when you get some age on your brain, it tends to lose some of the lesser used items. - Best 73's de Howard W3CQH |
REMOVING ENAMEL COATING
On May 26, 10:57*pm, Scott wrote:
Dave Platt wrote: In article , W3CQH wrote: Does anybody have the name of the substance that was sold years ago for removing the enamel coating from wires, or maybe the name of something new? You would soak the wire in it and it would soften the coating and then you just wiped the goop off the wire. I think you're referring to GC Electronics Strip-X. *Doesn't seem to be on the market these days, as best as I can tell. I found a MSDS which states that it's 70% methylene chloride, 25% cresol (isomers of cresylic acid), around 5% ammonia, plus some wax and thickening agents. One poster in an earlier thread stated that it was designed to work with Formvar insulation, and might not work as well on the newer Polythermaleze insulation. There's a paint-and-finish stripper of a similar name (Klean-Strip Strip-X) available these days. *Like the wire-"Strip-X" it contains methylene chloride, but it has no cresol or ammonia. *Its other ingredients include toluene, xylene, and methanol, plus a thickener (it's relatively goopy and would probably have to be wiped off of the wire using a paper towel or Q-tip or something like that). These chemicals all come with fire- and health-hazard warnings... if you use 'em, do so with proper care and precautions! I just put a glob of solder on the soldering iron tip and dunk the enameled wire into it until the enamel melts and the solder tins the end of the wire. *Been doing that for over 20 years now...seems to work A-OK.. Almost all modern enameled magnet wires have Beldsol-type coatings that are supposed to burn/vaporize at soldering temperatures, yes. I think that some Beldsol-type coatings have a further nylon overcoat that is quite impermeable to most of the solvents I have sitting on my shelf... yet it vaporizes if I dunk it in solder. I think Polythermaleze is a polyester of some kind and seems to be more amenable to the solvents I have. Occasionally I will run across a different enamel that's supposed to stand higher temperatures... often the color is not the same red as Beldsol but sometimes it is! Tim N3QE |
REMOVING ENAMEL COATING
Tim Shoppa wrote: Almost all modern enameled magnet wires have Beldsol-type coatings that are supposed to burn/vaporize at soldering temperatures, yes. These seem to have a dark red or maroon colouring as opposed to older enamels which were a golden colour. These are certainly not heat-strippable. I don't recall the heat-strippable enamels much before the 70s. Alan |
REMOVING ENAMEL COATING
On May 27, 9:30*am, Alan Peake wrote:
Tim Shoppa wrote: Almost all modern enameled magnet wires have Beldsol-type coatings that are supposed to burn/vaporize at soldering temperatures, yes. These seem to have a dark red or maroon colouring as opposed to older enamels which were a golden colour. These are certainly not heat-strippable. I don't recall the heat-strippable enamels much before the 70s. True... the most common color for Beldsol-type stuff seems to be the dark red. But I think some (most?) green is Beldsol-type too. If it doesn't vaporize in solder, I usually just go at it with sandpaper. Tim. |
REMOVING ENAMEL COATING
Scott wrote:
Dave Platt wrote: In article , W3CQH wrote: Does anybody have the name of the substance that was sold years ago for removing the enamel coating from wires, or maybe the name of something new? You would soak the wire in it and it would soften the coating and then you just wiped the goop off the wire. I think you're referring to GC Electronics Strip-X. Doesn't seem to be on the market these days, as best as I can tell. I found a MSDS which states that it's 70% methylene chloride, 25% cresol (isomers of cresylic acid), around 5% ammonia, plus some wax and thickening agents. One poster in an earlier thread stated that it was designed to work with Formvar insulation, and might not work as well on the newer Polythermaleze insulation. There's a paint-and-finish stripper of a similar name (Klean-Strip Strip-X) available these days. Like the wire-"Strip-X" it contains methylene chloride, but it has no cresol or ammonia. Its other ingredients include toluene, xylene, and methanol, plus a thickener (it's relatively goopy and would probably have to be wiped off of the wire using a paper towel or Q-tip or something like that). These chemicals all come with fire- and health-hazard warnings... if you use 'em, do so with proper care and precautions! I just put a glob of solder on the soldering iron tip and dunk the enameled wire into it until the enamel melts and the solder tins the end of the wire. Been doing that for over 20 years now...seems to work A-OK. Scott N0EDV Some of the magnet wire I have will do that, some won't, and some needs to be scraped a bit with a knife before it works -- the heat will kill the adhesion between wire and enamel, but it won't do in the enamel. I generally always scrape with a knife, then tin -- but I wouldn't put anything I build through a vibe test! -- Tim Wescott Wescott Design Services http://www.wescottdesign.com Do you need to implement control loops in software? "Applied Control Theory for Embedded Systems" gives you just what it says. See details at http://www.wescottdesign.com/actfes/actfes.html |
REMOVING ENAMEL COATING
W3CQH wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message .. . Dave Platt wrote: In article , W3CQH wrote: Does anybody have the name of the substance that was sold years ago for removing the enamel coating from wires, or maybe the name of something new? You would soak the wire in it and it would soften the coating and then you just wiped the goop off the wire. I think you're referring to GC Electronics Strip-X. Doesn't seem to be on the market these days, as best as I can tell. I found a MSDS which states that it's 70% methylene chloride, 25% cresol (isomers of cresylic acid), around 5% ammonia, plus some wax and thickening agents. One poster in an earlier thread stated that it was designed to work with Formvar insulation, and might not work as well on the newer Polythermaleze insulation. There's a paint-and-finish stripper of a similar name (Klean-Strip Strip-X) available these days. Like the wire-"Strip-X" it contains methylene chloride, but it has no cresol or ammonia. Its other ingredients include toluene, xylene, and methanol, plus a thickener (it's relatively goopy and would probably have to be wiped off of the wire using a paper towel or Q-tip or something like that). These chemicals all come with fire- and health-hazard warnings... if you use 'em, do so with proper care and precautions! I just put a glob of solder on the soldering iron tip and dunk the enameled wire into it until the enamel melts and the solder tins the end of the wire. Been doing that for over 20 years now...seems to work A-OK. Scott N0EDV Thanks Scott - I forgot that technique - Yes it does work - sometimes when you get some age on your brain, it tends to lose some of the lesser used items. - Best 73's de Howard W3CQH Glad to help out! I have "halfzheimers"....I've only forgotten HALF of what I used to know! ;) Good luck with whatever project you are working on :) Scott N0EDV |
REMOVING ENAMEL COATING
|
REMOVING ENAMEL COATING
In
AF6AY wrote: General Cement's "Strip-X" hasn't been sold by them for at least a dozen years. Here's a link to the "Material Safety Data Sheet" for Strip-X which shows its components with % by weight of each. http://www2.itap.purdue.edu/msds/docs/1451.pdf [67% methylene chloride, 17% phenol, 4% ammonia, 20% inert thickeners] -- Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN |
REMOVING ENAMEL COATING
Scott Wrote:
There's a paint-and-finish stripper of a similar name (Klean-Strip Strip-X) available these days. Like the wire-"Strip-X" it contains methylene chloride, but it has no cresol or ammonia. Its other ingredients include toluene, xylene, and methanol, plus a thickener (it's relatively goopy and would probably have to be wiped off of the wire using a paper towel or Q-tip or something like that). These chemicals all come with fire- and health-hazard warnings... if you use 'em, do so with proper care and precautions! I just put a glob of solder on the soldering iron tip and dunk the enameled wire into it until the enamel melts and the solder tins the end of the wire. Been doing that for over 20 years now...seems to work A-OK. Scott N0EDV Thanks Scott - I forgot that technique - Yes it does work - sometimes when you get some age on your brain, it tends to lose some of the lesser used items. - Best 73's de Howard W3CQH Glad to help out! I have "halfzheimers"....I've only forgotten HALF of what I used to know! ;) It's probably due to the paint stripper we've been inhaling for all those years. Out of all the possible ingredients, I'm blaming it on the thickener. -- 73 from Ian GM3SEK 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB) http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek |
REMOVING ENAMEL COATING
Dave Platt wrote:
There's a paint-and-finish stripper of a similar name (Klean-Strip Strip-X) available these days. Like the wire-"Strip-X" it contains methylene chloride, but it has no cresol or ammonia. Its other ingredients include toluene, xylene, and methanol, plus a thickener (it's relatively goopy and would probably have to be wiped off of the wire using a paper towel or Q-tip or something like that). These chemicals all come with fire- and health-hazard warnings... if you use 'em, do so with proper care and precautions! ======================================= The ( potential health)problem chemicals are the C6H6-ring hydrocarbons : toluene and xylene . In addition to breathing the vapours , skin contact with the liquid is outright dangerous Most products containing these benzene/benzol derivatives are no longer available to the public at large ,since they can cause cancer. But.......they are very effective solvents. Frank GM0CSZ / KN6WH |
REMOVING ENAMEL COATING
AF6AY wrote:
... The do-gooders done did too much with all those warnings and attempts to protect us all from everything. Naaa, it's the people who think they should be rewarded for stupidity and basic capitalism that took all that stuff off the market. Some idiot did something stupid with the product and decided to sue. The company looked at a long legal fight or settlement and settled. They looked at a couple settlements and decided it would be more profitable to eliminate the product and concentrate on other things as they're not in the business to keep consumers satisfied, just get their money and keep as much of it as possible. - W8LNA |
REMOVING ENAMEL COATING
On May 28, 8:03*am, gwatts wrote:
AF6AY wrote: ... The do-gooders done did too much with all those warnings and attempts to protect us all from everything. If a product is dangerous, why shouldn't it have warnings? Particularly when there are known carcinogens and other health hazards involved? It's not being a "do-gooder" or "doing too much" to discover hazards and eliminate or contain them. Sure, not everyone who uses Strip-X will get cancer. But some of the components of it are known carcinogens, and a proven hazard. More important, we can't know ahead of time who the susceptible folks are. Naaa, it's the people who think they should be rewarded for stupidity and basic capitalism that took all that stuff off the market. *Some idiot did something stupid with the product and decided to sue. *The company looked at a long legal fight or settlement and settled. Maybe. But I doubt it. More likely, they looked at the *possibility* of such a lawsuit, the scientific evidence of the hazards of the ingredients, the limited profit and declining sales, and just stopped making the product. Once a chemical is shown to be dangerous, the manufacturers can't claim ignorance anymore. They...decided it would be more profitable to eliminate the product and concentrate on other things as they're not in the business to keep consumers satisfied, just get their money and keep as much of it as possible. Profitability is what "capitalism" and "business" are all about. Without profitability, a capitalist company just disappears. Since the formula for Strip-X appears to be in the public domain, anybody can make it and sell it. Would *you* be willing to set up shop to make it and sell it, with all the risks that entails, and the very limited market for it? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
REMOVING ENAMEL COATING
On May 26, 12:43*pm, "W3CQH" wrote:
Does anybody have the name of the substance that was sold years ago for removing the enamel coating from wires, or maybe the name of something new? You would soak the wire in it and it would soften the coating and then you just wiped the goop off the wire. 73's I've always burned off the insulation with a lighter, removed the remaining ash with a couple swipes of very fine sandpaper, and tinned. Never had a problem yet. Mike |
REMOVING ENAMEL COATING
If a product is dangerous, why shouldn't it have warnings?
Sure, not everyone who uses Strip-X will get cancer. But some of the components of it are known carcinogens, and a proven hazard. More important, we can't know ahead of time who the susceptible folks are. Naaa, it's the people who think they should be rewarded for stupidity and basic capitalism that took all that stuff off the market. Some idiot did something stupid with the product and decided to sue. The company looked at a long legal fight or settlement and settled. Maybe. But I doubt it. More likely, they looked at the *possibility* of such a lawsuit, the scientific evidence of the hazards of the ingredients, the limited profit and declining sales, and just stopped making the product. Once a chemical is shown to be dangerous, the manufacturers can't claim ignorance anymore. =================================== And (quite rightly)the FDA , EPA and other relevant agencies at Federal and State level will be taking action . In Europe action against dangerous substances is nowadays increasingly taken through legislation by the European Parliament. I welcome that Frank GM0CSZ / KN6WH |
REMOVING ENAMEL COATING
On Wed, 28 May 2008 14:18:47 -0700 (PDT) Mike Silva
wrote: On May 26, 12:43*pm, "W3CQH" wrote: Does anybody have the name of the substance that was sold years ago for removing the enamel coating from wires, or maybe the name of something new? You would soak the wire in it and it would soften the coating and then you just wiped the goop off the wire. I've always burned off the insulation with a lighter, removed the remaining ash with a couple swipes of very fine sandpaper, and tinned. Never had a problem yet. That's what I've always done, too, but the last time I suggested it, all I heard were lots of complaints about how much easier it was to spend a lot of time breathing odd fumes. Yes, there certainly was a commercial product once sold for this purpose, but I suspect the only reason it was out there was because they knew they couldn't make much money selling "Wire Stripper Kits" that consisted of a book of matches. ;-) - ----------------------------------------------- Jim Adney Madison, WI 53711 USA ----------------------------------------------- |
REMOVING ENAMEL COATING
Scott wrote:
I just put a glob of solder on the soldering iron tip and dunk the enameled wire into it until the enamel melts and the solder tins the end of the wire. Been doing that for over 20 years now.... Really Scott, if it hasn't tinned after 20 years, it probably isn't going to... hehe, sorry, couldn't help myself! ;^) - 73 de Mike N3LI - |
REMOVING ENAMEL COATING
wrote:
On May 28, 8:03 am, gwatts wrote: AF6AY wrote: ... The do-gooders done did too much with all those warnings and attempts to protect us all from everything. If a product is dangerous, why shouldn't it have warnings? Particularly when there are known carcinogens and other health hazards involved? It's not being a "do-gooder" or "doing too much" to discover hazards and eliminate or contain them. I think it a matter of magnitude. Some items such as Benzene are pretty dangerous and have an established track record of making people sick. Those should go whenever possible. OTOH, the little bottle of Strip-X with it's foul stench is probably not going to cause anyone harm outside of self inflicted (i.e. suicide attempts) Of course, I'm not so sure if Strip-X was discontinued because of health concerns or that it just didn't work any more on new generations of enameled wire. Sure, not everyone who uses Strip-X will get cancer. But some of the components of it are known carcinogens, and a proven hazard. More important, we can't know ahead of time who the susceptible folks are. Naaa, it's the people who think they should be rewarded for stupidity and basic capitalism that took all that stuff off the market. Some idiot did something stupid with the product and decided to sue. The company looked at a long legal fight or settlement and settled. Maybe. But I doubt it. More likely, they looked at the *possibility* of such a lawsuit, the scientific evidence of the hazards of the ingredients, the limited profit and declining sales, and just stopped making the product. Once a chemical is shown to be dangerous, the manufacturers can't claim ignorance anymore. They...decided it would be more profitable to eliminate the product and concentrate on other things as they're not in the business to keep consumers satisfied, just get their money and keep as much of it as possible. Profitability is what "capitalism" and "business" are all about. Without profitability, a capitalist company just disappears. Since the formula for Strip-X appears to be in the public domain, anybody can make it and sell it. Would *you* be willing to set up shop to make it and sell it, with all the risks that entails, and the very limited market for it? There you touch on the real issue with items like Strip-X. The manufacturing side. While I might have my little bottle that I get out a time or two during the day, the people making the stuff have exposure issues well beyond that. As an aside: The butter flavor on your popcorn (diacetyl) has a nasty side effect for the people who make it (and apparently at least one microwave popcorn addict) when it vaporizes, it can pretty seriously impair lung function. It is a natural substance, but the way in which it is used is the problem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diacetyl http://www.butterflavoringlunginjury.com/index.htm http://defendingscience.org/Diacetyl-Background.cfm But I digress. My main point is that while we might not get much exposure, those who produce it just might be getting serious contact with nasty chemicals. - 73 de Mike N3LI - |
REMOVING ENAMEL COATING
Michael Coslo wrote:
Scott wrote: I just put a glob of solder on the soldering iron tip and dunk the enameled wire into it until the enamel melts and the solder tins the end of the wire. Been doing that for over 20 years now.... Really Scott, if it hasn't tinned after 20 years, it probably isn't going to... hehe, sorry, couldn't help myself! ;^) - 73 de Mike N3LI - LOL! Ha! Good one. I didn't even catch that one :) My high school English teacher would probably slap me for that one ;) Scott N0EDV |
REMOVING ENAMEL COATING
From: Michael Coslo on Thurs, May 29 2008 6:02 am:
AF6AY wrote: From: (Dave Platt) wrote on Mon, May 26 2008: In article , W3CQH wrote: I wonder if items such as Strip-X became obsolete due to changes in insulation composition, i.e. not working on new types of insulation. But I do agree about the folk who would protect us from ourselves. Strip-X was pretty innocuous stuff. As far as I could tell from communications with General Cement, it was FEDERAL REGULATIONS that was the issue. GC already had over a hundred products in its catalog so they weren't going to suffer any real loss in income. They've been making 'radio' chemical products for over 75 years. Did you by any chance try some old style enameled wire in your experiment above? "Experiment?" The only experimentation I did was well AFTER my last bottle of Strip-X was used up, residue dried out. Strip-X from GC worked for me the first time I tried it long, long ago. That experimentation I wrote about was to find a possible substitute for GC Strip-X. GC Strip-X has worked on enamel-coated magnet wire, PolythermalEze (a trade name), different kinds of wire-wrap wire. It didn't work on the surplus Teflon-coated #25 AWG magnet wire I got surplus from a transformer maker (#25 is an odd gauge, heh heh, but the transformer makers use practically every gauge in the AWG table). Tetrafluouroethylene is pretty inert stuff so few chemicals will affect it. Teflon also abrades easily compared to other insulations so it is relatively easy to strip with a knife. The acetone issue is a strange one. Acetone is one of the safer solvents out there, heck our body even produces some acetone. I think that should be 'acetyls' in the human body, not acetone per se. shrug Acetone won't strip off enamels or other polymers used on magnet wire. I tried that, too, also toluene. Acetone as a solvent was dropped from the model hobby industry chemicals once gas-powered models started using "hot fuel," the methanol-based stuff for glow plug engines that took over from real spark plug ignition model gas engines in the late 1940s. Methanol softened acetate-based paints, whereas the 'ordinary' gasoline used in spark ignition engine fuel did not affect acetone-solvent lacquer commonly called "dope" in model hobby industry jargon. For years Testor Chemical Company, also in Rockford, IL, had lacquer paint bottle labels of DOPE in all- capitals, something you just CANNOT DO in today's restrictive society. Building model airplanes was fun, the "dope" smelled very nice, so the blue-noses made all kinds of bad noises about the "evils" of having fun in a hobby. Sigh. Digression: The first small two-cycle gasoline engines used real spark plugs of very small size. I still have two Champion brand spark plugs in a storage area...less than a half-inch long...and those are for the big class C and D engine displacements. I learned to solder wires properly by making the spark ignition packages for gas-powered models. The "spark coil" for those was a tiny one that was picked up by the first electronic flash units for camera use in the 1950s...ideal for igniting the Xenon flash tubes that replaced the one-shot photoflash bulbs. Yes, I was emitting "spark" RF in the late 1940s with those spark-ignition engines, all without being licensed to do so. So were other gas-engine modelers and just about EVERY running automobile of that time! :-) My late father-in-law was a polymer chemist. He died in 1977 so can't help me. I just hope that some chemist could come to the aid of us hobbyists using coated magnet wire and provide us with a GOOD product like Strip-X was. Meanwhile, it's back to being VERY careful with a sharp X-Acto knofe and scraping coatings. With #34 AWG that requires Zen-like calmness... That is an understatement1 8^) I have to make sure I am in a good mood, and no coffee for me that day before I attempt that sort of thing. Coffee calms me down. Always has. Makes for good moods. :-) Actually, I use a fine emery finishing paper to strip fine gauges of enamel-coated wire. I've used X-Acto hobby knives for the heavier gauges. Emery paper (easy to get at do-it- yourself stores) allows a gentle stroking of a folded emery paper over the wire. I find it works better to draw the emery paper over the wire rather than pulling the wire through the paper. Less nicking than with a knife blade for #28 to #34. I just finished a few small toroid inductors using #34 enamel-covered last week. Not recommended for beginners. :-) PATIENCE (in all-caps) is needed to make toroids of the T37 size (about 3/8" OD), drawing a very-carefully-folded wire bundle through the center hole in a toroid core. :-) THAT is the "Zen" thing. Good self-control is absolutely necessary, can't use slap-dash hurry-up behavior. By the way, don't use "Q-Dope" for coating finished inductors, any type. Despite what the ads say, it does NOT enhance the coil's Q. Trials of before-after measurements on a Q-Meter haven't shown goodness. ALL coatings degrade inductor Q. I've found that oil-based 'maritime' clear varnish to result in less degredation of Q than other coatings. I've used McCloskey "Gym-Seal" brand with good success on making inductor coatings that adhere to windings for years. It is available nationally in do-it-yourself stores. Q-Dope (originally acetate-solvent based, now probably using toluene solvent) will "lift" from smooth surfaces within a year in climates with only moderate humidity. Q-Dope only adheres well to all-polymer-based surfaces, won't get into fine pores. 'Maritime' varnishes NOT polyurethane based DO grab porous surfaces. I've tried various polyurethane- based varnishes with mixed results; the makers of those apparently have a rather large variation of ingredients. Varnishes take 2, 3 days to properly cure if used on coils. That's the down-side of using the stuff in hobby applications. However, on a Q-Meter the characteristics of 'maritime' varnish coated inductors don't change much after it has reached a tacky state, roughly 12 hours after application. It ain't for 'weekender' projects started on a Saturday and 'finished' on Sunday. 73, Len AF6AY |
REMOVING ENAMEL COATING
On May 28, 5:18*pm, Mike Silva wrote:
On May 26, 12:43*pm, "W3CQH" wrote: Does anybody have the name of the substance that was sold years ago for removing the enamel coating from wires, or maybe the name of something new? You would soak the wire in it and it would soften the coating and then you just wiped the goop off the wire. 73's I've always burned off the insulation with a lighter, removed the remaining ash with a couple swipes of very fine sandpaper, and tinned. *Never had a problem yet. Mike Same idea but I use an alcohol burner like the ones that used to come in chemistry sets. Those burners are incredably useul. Combined with a blowpipe you can melt glass and braze small parts. Jimmie |
REMOVING ENAMEL COATING
On May 29, 9:34�am, Michael Coslo wrote:
wrote: On May 28, 8:03 am, gwatts wrote: AF6AY wrote: The do-gooders done did too much with all those warnings and attempts to protect us all from everything. If a product is dangerous, why shouldn't it have warnings? Particularly when there are known carcinogens and other health hazards involved? It's not being a "do-gooder" or "doing too much" to discover hazards and eliminate or contain them. I think it a matter of magnitude. Not really. See below. Some items such as Benzene are pretty dangerous and have an established track record of making people sick. Those should go whenever possible. Agreed. OTOH, the little bottle of Strip-X with it's foul stench is probably not going to cause anyone harm outside of self inflicted (i.e. suicide attempts) But it *is* dangerous stuff, and should have adequate warnings, shouldn't it? What does "do-gooder done did too much with all those warnings and attempts to protect us all from everything." really mean? Are there too many warnings on dangerous chemicals? More important, do we really *know* that Strip-X isn't going to cause anyone harm unless intentionally abused? Did every user of the stuff do so in a "well-ventilated area"? I think not. Of course, I'm not so sure if Strip-X was discontinued because of health concerns or that it just didn't work any more on new generations of enameled wire. AFAIK, it worked on all enameled wire. Teflon isn't an "enamel". Sure, not everyone who uses Strip-X will get cancer. But some of the components of it are known carcinogens, and a proven hazard. More important, we can't know ahead of time who the susceptible folks are. More likely, they looked at the *possibility* of such a lawsuit, the scientific evidence of the hazards of the ingredients, the limited profit and declining sales, and just stopped making the product. Once a chemical is shown to be dangerous, the manufacturers can't claim ignorance anymore. Since the formula for Strip-X appears to be in the public domain, anybody can make it and sell it. Would *you* be willing to set up shop to make it and sell it, with all the risks that entails, and the very limited market for it? There you touch on the real issue with items like Strip-X. The manufacturing side. While I might have my little bottle that I get out a time or two during the day, the people making the stuff have exposure issues well beyond that. Depending on the manufacturing process. The history of industry is full of examples of people being slowly killed at work by exposure to hazards. Asbestos, radium paint, carbon tet, MEK, all sorts of wonderful stuff. The fact that something doesn't kill everyone who gets near it doesn't make it safe enough. My main point is that while we might not get much exposure, those who produce it just might be getting serious contact with nasty chemicals. 'zactly. It's all about avoidable risk. Another example: Once upon a time, cars had single main hydraulic brake systems. The master cylinder had one pump that fed all four wheel cylinders. It was simple and effective, but a failure anywhere in the system (wheel cylinder, master cylinder, brake lines, etc.) meant total hydraulic brake system failure. Then the "do-gooders" pushed for dual brake systems, on the theory that most single failures would leave half the brake system working, plus a warning system. Critics said that the cost and complexity were too much, and that complete brake failure was very rare in then-modern cars with single systems. The "do-gooders" won, and dual brake systems with warnings became the standard. Was that excessive? I guess it depends on whether you've ever had the brake pedal go right to the floor at a critical moment. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
REMOVING ENAMEL COATING
The best product for stripping enamel wire is one which not many
hobbyists will have around the home: a solder pot. Foster Transformer in Cincinnati used this method for stripping enamel and tinning the ends of transformer leads simultaneously. All they did was do straighten out the leads and dip the wire ends into the pot for about five seconds. Dave K8MN |
REMOVING ENAMEL COATING
On Jun 1, 1:24�pm, Dave Heil wrote:
The best product for stripping enamel wire is one which not many hobbyists will have around the home: �a solder pot. Yup. I've used them. Of course someone might protest that the discussion is about doing the job *chemically*.... Foster Transformer in Cincinnati used this method for stripping enamel and tinning the ends of transformer leads simultaneously. �All they did was do straighten out the leads and dip the wire ends into the pot for about five seconds. Pretty much standard in the electronics industry, really. Faster and less costly than Strip-X for production work. At Southgate Radio, for multiple units, an improvised solder pot is made by heating a cleaned-out tuna can full of solder splashes over a propane torch or stove burner(with appropriate safety precautions). For small jobs, a blob of solder on the 100 watt American Beauty iron does the job. Elecraft transceiver kits (except the K3) require that you wind toroids and strip the wire ends. They recommend the solder-blob method, and since the wire is relatively small you don't need a big iron. My military-surplus Weller WCTPK kit does the job very well. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
REMOVING ENAMEL COATING
|
REMOVING ENAMEL COATING
|
REMOVING ENAMEL COATING
Dave Heil wrote:
The best product for stripping enamel wire is one which not many hobbyists will have around the home: a solder pot. I've used them. They work like a champ. I think we dipped them in flux for a second too. - 73 de Mike N3LI - |
REMOVING ENAMEL COATING
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote: On Jun 1, 1:24�pm, Dave Heil wrote: The best product for stripping enamel wire is one which not many hobbyists will have around the home: �a solder pot. Yup. I've used them. Of course someone might protest that the discussion is about doing the job *chemically*.... Chemically-schmemically. Do they want to remove enamel or discuss semantics? Never thought of it one way or the other. I suppose if I had to classify it as something, I'de callit chemical. But I don't get why that would be a complaint about th eprocess. I think I've already related the tale in r.r.a.p. that I had the President of Ideal Tool make a call on Foster with me. His plan was to sell one of the company's new abrasive stone type enamel removing machines. After the kindly chief engineer showed how Foster removed/tinned with the solder pot, the man from Ideal told me that he didn't believe there was much of a market for his machine. At Southgate Radio, for multiple units, an improvised solder pot is made by heating a cleaned-out tuna can full of solder splashes over a propane torch or stove burner(with appropriate safety precautions). For small jobs, a blob of solder on the 100 watt American Beauty iron does the job. Waste not, want not. I think I'd just wait until the XYL isn't home and heat the can on a burner of the gas stove. Doesn't it sound like something which could go terribly, terribly wrong? Yes it does. I did have the occasion to melt some lead for a counterbalance for a telescope I made. I took a cast iron saucepan and put the lead in it, and melted it over a Coleman stove outside the garage. I was a little concerned while I did it, but it all turned okay. I wonder if there is a specific metal the solder pots used. I don't know if critical applications would have an issue with contamination or not. Solder is a bit corrosive. - 73 de Mike N3LI - |
REMOVING ENAMEL COATING
On Jun 2, 1:22Â*pm, Dave Heil wrote:
wrote: On Jun 1, 1:24�pm, Dave Heil wrote: Of course someone might protest that the discussion is about doing the job *chemically*.... Chemically-schmemically. Â*Do they want to remove enamel or discuss semantics? Some folks will argue just for the sake of arguing. And while they will talk a lot about their experience of decades past, they'll not say much about what they have actually done recently. Particularly in terms of actually building their own ham rigs or operating on the ham bands. All they did was do straighten out the leads and dip the wire ends into the pot for about five seconds. Pretty much standard in the electronics industry, really. Faster and less costly than Strip-X for production work. I had the President of Ideal Tool make a call on Foster with me. Â*His plan was to sell one of the company's new abrasive stone type enamel removing machines. Â*After the kindly chief engineer showed how Foster removed/tinned with the solder pot, the man from Ideal told me that he didn't believe there was much of a market for his machine. ooops! Hadn't heard that one before! At Southgate Radio, for multiple units, an improvised solder pot is made by heating a cleaned-out tuna can full of solder splashes over a propane torch or stove burner(with appropriate safety precautions). For small jobs, a blob of solder on the 100 watt American Beauty iron does the job. Waste not, want not. That's a key value at Southgate Radio. Also: Use it up, wear it out Make it do, or do without Â*I think I'd just wait until the XYL isn't home and heat the can on a burner of the gas stove. That's what I described. Â*Doesn't it sound like something which could go terribly, terribly wrong? Not with "appropriate safety precautions". Elecraft transceiver kits (except the K3) require that you wind toroids and strip the wire ends. They recommend the solder-blob method, and since the wire is relatively small you don't need a big iron. My military-surplus Weller WCTPK kit does the job very well. I've often used a razor blade or X-acto knife to get the job done. Me too, but it depends on whether a tinned wire is wanted. Now when it comes to terminating a 37 conductor #14 Kerite cable...but that's another story.... 73 de Jim, N2EY |
REMOVING ENAMEL COATING
Michael Coslo wrote:
I'd rather read that than something about what "The state of California knows" you know, those strange postings beside gasoline pumps? This product is know to the State of California as a carcinogen" type stuff. I wonder how many people called up the state of California to talk about that? What does "do-gooder done did too much with all those warnings and attempts to protect us all from everything." really mean? Are there too many warnings on dangerous chemicals? I don't mind the warnings too much as long as they are not stupid warnings. What I do mind is when a useful product goes away. More important, do we really *know* that Strip-X isn't going to cause anyone harm unless intentionally abused? Or salted codfish for that matter? I know that sounds a little sarcastic, but the point is that there is a statistical correlation between large consumption of salted and smoked fish with stomach cancer. Keep voting Democrat, and you'll insure that Government will protect you...at a price! |
REMOVING ENAMEL COATING
NoMoreSpam wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote: I'd rather read that than something about what "The state of California knows" you know, those strange postings beside gasoline pumps? This product is know to the State of California as a carcinogen" type stuff. I wonder how many people called up the state of California to talk about that? What does "do-gooder done did too much with all those warnings and attempts to protect us all from everything." really mean? Are there too many warnings on dangerous chemicals? I don't mind the warnings too much as long as they are not stupid warnings. What I do mind is when a useful product goes away. More important, do we really *know* that Strip-X isn't going to cause anyone harm unless intentionally abused? Or salted codfish for that matter? I know that sounds a little sarcastic, but the point is that there is a statistical correlation between large consumption of salted and smoked fish with stomach cancer. Keep voting Democrat, and you'll insure that Government will protect you...at a price! Better than voting Republican where you still pay the price, your children and grandchildren continue to pay the price, and all the protections go away under the guise of 'we big, rich business types have to be able to make a profit!' |
Lead free solder , was : REMOVING ENAMEL COATING
The EU has regs that are essentially outlawing lead solder in
electronics. Because the EU is such a big market, most electronics makers are following along, and rather than deal with both lead and no- lead solders, they're going all-no-lead. With all the problems lead- free electronic solders bring along. But IMHO the whole thing is wrong-headed. Lead in the environment is a problem, but the solution is recycling, not banning lead. How ironic is it that a major rework of a car's electronics will be done to eliminate a few ounces of lead-tin solder, while the car's battery contains many pounds of lead and acid? ============================================ Indeed ,lead free solder does not flow that well even at elevated temperatures , so I have stocked up on leaded solder (possibly sufficiently for the rest of my home brewing life). But the point is that electronic equipment having printed circuit boards contain a very low percentage (weight wise) of solder. If that solder contains lead any recycling effort to recover/isolate the lead will be exceedingly costly. In the past printed circuit boards were pulverised to recover the gold on 'contact fingers' through a chemical process , but apparently that is no longer viable. So although there is very little lead in electronic equipment manufactured with 60/40 or 63/37 leaded solder ,when equipment ends up in a land fill the cumulative effect is bad ,poisoning ground water. So it does make sense to go for lead free solder. BTW : In the UK leaded solder is still available ,although no longer from High Street retail outlets like Maplin Electronics . Lead Acid Batteries have a large percentage of lead (weight wise) ,hence recycling is commercially viable . Frank GM0CSZ / KN6WH |
REMOVING ENAMEL COATING
On Jun 2, 2:38Â*pm, Michael Coslo wrote:
wrote: On May 29, 9:34�am, Michael Coslo wrote: wrote: On May 28, 8:03 am, gwatts wrote: AF6AY wrote: The do-gooders done did too much with all those warnings and attempts to protect us all from everything. If a product is dangerous, why shouldn't it have warnings? Particularly when there are known carcinogens and other health hazards involved? It's not being a "do-gooder" or "doing too much" to discover hazards and eliminate or contain them. I think it a matter of magnitude. Not really. See below. Some items such as Benzene are pretty dangerous and have an established track record of making people sick. Those should go whenever possible. Agreed. OTOH, the little bottle of Strip-X with it's foul stench is probably not going to cause anyone harm outside of self inflicted (i.e. suicide attempts) But it *is* dangerous stuff, and should have adequate warnings, shouldn't it? There's my magnitude issue. I'm in no way implying that there be no warning on the bottles. I am implying that it is a useful product, and legislating it out of existence, or just making it too much trouble for a company to produce is not a good thing. Something just occurred to me. We don't *know* that Strip-X was discontinued because of health/safety/ environmental/"do-gooder" issues. That's pure speculation. It's quite possible - in fact, probable - that the reason Strip-X was discontinued was lack of sales. After all, the *professionals* use solder pots, not chemicals. Amateurs who are in the know use solder pots, or a solder blob. I suspect that the market for Strip-X was so small it wasn't worth producing any more. We do have a system that is pretty good. The MSDS reports are pretty slick and non-sensational. Of course, they won't fit on that little bottle! 8^) And folks have to read them and understand them. I'd rather read that than something about what "The state of California knows" you know, those strange postings beside gasoline pumps? This product is know to the State of California as a carcinogen" type stuff. I wonder how many people called up the state of California to talk about that? bwaahaahaaa What does "do-gooder done did too much with all those warnings and attempts to protect us all from everything." really mean? Are there too many warnings on dangerous chemicals? I don't mind the warnings too much as long as they are not stupid warnings. What I do mind is when a useful product goes away. But as I wrote, we don't *know* that such things got rid of Strip-X. I say it was solder pots. More important, do we really *know* that Strip-X isn't going to cause anyone harm unless intentionally abused? Or salted codfish for that matter? I know that sounds a little sarcastic, but the point is that there is a statistical correlation between large consumption of salted and smoked fish with stomach cancer. Correlation isn't causation. Unless a controlled study is done that eliminates other variables, a causation is not proven. For example, it could be that those who eat lots of salted and smoked fish also tend to eat lots of something else, and it's the something else which is the real cause. The "known to California" jargon means such controlled studies have been done. Did every user of the stuff do so in a "well-ventilated area"? I think not. One can only give guidelines, not enforce them. Of course. And people have to read them! Once upon a time, cars had single main hydraulic brake systems. The master cylinder had one pump that fed all four wheel cylinders. It was simple and effective, but a failure anywhere in the system (wheel cylinder, master cylinder, brake lines, etc.) meant total hydraulic brake system failure. Then the "do-gooders" pushed for dual brake systems, on the theory that most single failures would leave half the brake system working, plus a warning system. Critics said that the cost and complexity were too much, and that complete brake failure was very rare in then-modern cars with single systems. The "do-gooders" won, and dual brake systems with warnings became the standard. Was that excessive? I guess it depends on whether you've ever had the brake pedal go right to the floor at a critical moment. For me at least, the comparison of mechanical with chemical issues is a little hard to work. Why? It's the same concept: reduction of avoidable risk. The point is that the *professionals* who made the cars resisted safety improvements that we now take for granted. I have long advocated such radical technology as strong roll cages, 5 point seat belts and fire suppression systems on automobiles if we want to get serious about safety. A roll cage isn't needed if the car structure is built strong enough (roof won't collapse if car rolls over) True harnesses are a good idea, as is fire suppression. On the other hand, I've silvered my telescope mirrors in my garage. This involves a litany of nasty stuff, from Silver nitrate to Â*potassium hydroxide to nitric acid. (now that stuff is scary) And oddly enough, sucrose and citric acid. I'd hate to be not allowed to do such things because someone thought I might get hurt. Hydroflouric acid is *really* nasty. The Big Issue IMHO is whether a dangerous process can be made safer. Is there a safer way to silver a telescope mirror? There *is* a safer way to remove enamel from wire, and you get the added bonus of a tinned wire. Why use a chemical at all? --- Related topic: The EU has regs that are essentially outlawing lead solder in electronics. Because the EU is such a big market, most electronics makers are following along, and rather than deal with both lead and no- lead solders, they're going all-no-lead. With all the problems lead- free electronic solders bring along. But IMHO the whole thing is wrong-headed. Lead in the environment is a problem, but the solution is recycling, not banning lead. How ironic is it that a major rework of a car's electronics will be done to eliminate a few ounces of lead-tin solder, while the car's battery contains many pounds of lead and acid? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Lead free solder , was : REMOVING ENAMEL COATING
"Highland Ham" wrote in message ... exceedingly costly. In the past printed circuit boards were pulverised to recover the gold on 'contact fingers' through a chemical process , but apparently that is no longer viable. We have been seeing signs all over for people buying gold jewelry. This past weekend my wife knocked some talk out of one of these guys, and they said they still do recover gold from PCBs, but right now, buying old jewelry does result in a source of gold for about 1/3 the market price. ... |
REMOVING ENAMEL COATING
|
Lead free solder , was : REMOVING ENAMEL COATING
Highland Ham wrote:
The EU has regs that are essentially outlawing lead solder in electronics. Because the EU is such a big market, most electronics makers are following along, and rather than deal with both lead and no- lead solders, they're going all-no-lead. With all the problems lead- free electronic solders bring along. But IMHO the whole thing is wrong-headed. Lead in the environment is a problem, but the solution is recycling, not banning lead. How ironic is it that a major rework of a car's electronics will be done to eliminate a few ounces of lead-tin solder, while the car's battery contains many pounds of lead and acid? ============================================ Indeed ,lead free solder does not flow that well even at elevated temperatures , so I have stocked up on leaded solder (possibly sufficiently for the rest of my home brewing life). But the point is that electronic equipment having printed circuit boards contain a very low percentage (weight wise) of solder. If that solder contains lead any recycling effort to recover/isolate the lead will be exceedingly costly. I think that machinery can be developed to handle lead removal, we already have ways of getting the solder onto those boards in rapid fashion. I think we aren't looking at it in the right way. Changing over is going to cost - probably big time. We are going to have to put up with increased failure rates, whether through solder joint failure, or reduced component life due to added heat stress. After all, if lead free solders were the best way to go, that's what we would be using. So we'll be retooling and spending that money for an inferior product. Maybe Devo was right! And, we're saying that this new lead free solder is going to be safe to dump in landfills. M'kay, if they say so..... - 73 de Mike N3LI - |
Lead free solder , was : REMOVING ENAMEL COATING
On Jun 5, 1:32�am, Highland Ham
wrote: (N2EY wrote): The EU has regs that are essentially outlawing lead solder in electronics. Because the EU is such a big market, most electronics makers are following along, and rather than deal with both lead and no- lead solders, they're going all-no-lead. With all the problems lead- free electronic solders bring along. But IMHO the whole thing is wrong-headed. Lead in the environment is a problem, but the solution is recycling, not banning lead. How ironic is it that a major rework of a car's electronics will be done to eliminate a few ounces of lead-tin solder, while the car's battery contains many pounds of lead and acid? ============================================ Indeed ,lead free solder does not flow that well even at elevated temperatures , so I have stocked up on leaded solder (possibly sufficiently for the rest of my home brewing life). I think a lot of electronics folks have done the same. But the point is that electronic equipment having printed circuit boards contain a very low percentage (weight wise) of solder. If that solder contains lead any recycling effort to recover/isolate the lead will be exceedingly costly. In the past printed circuit boards were pulverised to recover the gold on 'contact fingers' through a chemical process , but apparently that is no longer viable. Whether it's viable depends on the rules. Here in the USA, a number of states require a deposit (usually five cents) on beverage containers. That deposit is typically far more than the intrinsic worth of the metal, glass or plasti in the container, but that's not the point. Instead, the deposit makes it worthwhile to collect and recycle the containers, keeping them out of the trash stream and reducing litter. Why couldn't there be such a deposit on electronics? So although there is very little lead in electronic equipment manufactured with 60/40 or 63/37 leaded solder ,when equipment ends up in a land fill the cumulative effect is bad ,poisoning ground water. All sorts of things wind up in landfills that are far worse than the small amount of lead solder in electronics. Are the metals in lead- free solder all benign? So it does make sense to go for lead free solder. I think there are better ways to keep lead out of the trash. BTW : In the UK leaded solder is still available ,although no longer from High Street retail outlets like Maplin Electronics . Lead Acid Batteries have a large percentage of lead (weight wise) ,hence recycling is commercially viable . But does that guarantee no lead or cadmium containing batteries of any kind wind up in landfills? Just one car battery in a stream is far more contamination than a very large number of PC boards. IMHO, the big problem is that electronics of all kinds is becoming a throw-away item, with short useful lifespan, but recycling lags far behind. The problems of lead-free solder may make the lifespan shorter, and so the disposal problem worse. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:36 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com