On 1/28/2015 7:59 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 1/27/2015 11:18 PM, rickman wrote:
On 1/27/2015 10:37 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 1/27/2015 9:47 PM, rickman wrote:
On 1/27/2015 7:59 PM, Ralph Mowery wrote:
"Roger Hayter" wrote in message
...
The oils in these old capacitors are often PCBs (polychlorinated
bi-phenyls) which are quite toxic. And they can leak slightly
even if
not visibly. So I wouldn't have them in a house occupied by any
non-old
non-amateurs. (A bit late for me to take up H & S on my own behalf.)


The PCB is not really that toxic. The problem is that it almost
does not
break down and gets into the food chain. You can touch it and even
get a
small ammount in your mouth without any harm to you. I don't mean
drink it,
but say you get some on your hand and lick a drop or two off your
finger.

Wow! What is your basis for saying that? Are you trying to say if it
doesn't kill you outright there is no danger?


He's right - it isn't really that toxic. It takes multiple exposures
over a long time to do any harm; getting some on your hands won't hurt
you. And even when it does harm you, it's not fatal. But it does cause
nervous system disorders.

There are a lot of things much more toxic you can easily find, even at
the grocery store. Drain cleaner comes to mind...

I asked what the source of this "fact" is. PCBs cause cancer. I have
never heard exposure to a carcinogen is safe as long as it is only for a
"short time" or "just once". Scientists have tried to establish
exposure thresholds, but this is speculation. The issue is how much
risk are you willing to accept rather than there being a threshold of harm.


Exactly. There are no thresholds because scientists cannot determine
how much is required to cause a problem. Unlike drain cleaner, for
instance.

And there are a lot of things which cause cancer. Even artificial sugar
has been blamed for causing cancer. So are you going to stop using
anything containing artificial sugar?

I'm not going to debate this with you. Your comments show a lack of
understanding of the topic. As I already explained, there is no
evidence to show there is a threshold for most carcinogens. It is just
a matter of the level of risk incurred. More exposure, more risk. Less
exposure, less risk.

As to the artificial sugar issue, first you need to understand there is
no such substance as "artificial sugar" that has been shown to cause
cancer.


Just in the last few years I learned that we have so extensively
polluted our environment that it is not recommended to eat the fish from
nearly any river in the several US states where I live. This pollution
is largely in the form of PCBs. It is not from point sources that can
be cleaned up. It is widespread from small sources. Essentially, we
integrated this stuff into our lives to the extent that we are regularly
bathed in it.


More scare tactics. Pollution from medications (especially hormones)
being flushed down the drain is a much bigger problem. So I guess we
should stop taking any medications.

Scare tactics??? Facts!!! I have no idea how you leap from PCBs to
medicine.


It seems people believe our persistent destruction of the environment is
something that happens somewhere else or the harm is overblown or that
it is something that we will have to deal with in the future. But this
is not true. The future is here and we are all living in the results of
our own ignorance.


Which still has nothing to do with PCBs - except for scare tactics.

Ok, I guess there is no discussing the issue with you. Pollution by
PCBs is the poster child of how we are destroying our environment.


BTW, unlike carcinogens, I can eat drain cleaner every day in adequately
small amounts. NaOH, Sodium Hydroxide. I have sodium in my diet as an
essential nutrient and hydroxide exists in all water solutions. NaOH is
not actually a poison, it is a corrosive. If you come into contact with
it in high concentrations it is harmful. In low concentrations it is
harmless in the true sense. I know this for a fact. Without harm, I
have handled NaOH in concentrations high enough that I can feel the
soapiness. So your analogy is poor.


No, you have sodium chloride (NaCl) in your diet, not NaOH. And even
small amounts of NaOH have been shown to be harmful - it is considered a
poison.

Can you cite any reference that "small" amounts of NaOH are harmful? I
know for a fact you are talking through your hat on this issue.

"The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) allows sodium hydroxide as a
food additive in levels not to exceed 1%."

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaqs/tf.asp?id=248&tid=45

I think a food additive at 1% concentration shows it is clearly not a
poison in a conventional sense of the word. It is a corrosive at high
enough concentrations and that is the only mechanism that can cause harm
from NaOH. Well, that and being hit on the head with a 50 pound sack of
it.

I'm not going to argue this with you. On many topics you just like to
argue and don't care about the facts.

--

Rick

On 1/28/2015 10:55 AM, rickman wrote:
On 1/28/2015 7:59 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 1/27/2015 11:18 PM, rickman wrote:
On 1/27/2015 10:37 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 1/27/2015 9:47 PM, rickman wrote:
On 1/27/2015 7:59 PM, Ralph Mowery wrote:
"Roger Hayter" wrote in message
...
The oils in these old capacitors are often PCBs (polychlorinated
bi-phenyls) which are quite toxic. And they can leak slightly
even if
not visibly. So I wouldn't have them in a house occupied by any
non-old
non-amateurs. (A bit late for me to take up H & S on my own
behalf.)


The PCB is not really that toxic. The problem is that it almost
does not
break down and gets into the food chain. You can touch it and even
get a
small ammount in your mouth without any harm to you. I don't mean
drink it,
but say you get some on your hand and lick a drop or two off your
finger.

Wow! What is your basis for saying that? Are you trying to say if it
doesn't kill you outright there is no danger?


He's right - it isn't really that toxic. It takes multiple exposures
over a long time to do any harm; getting some on your hands won't hurt
you. And even when it does harm you, it's not fatal. But it does
cause
nervous system disorders.

There are a lot of things much more toxic you can easily find, even at
the grocery store. Drain cleaner comes to mind...

I asked what the source of this "fact" is. PCBs cause cancer. I have
never heard exposure to a carcinogen is safe as long as it is only for a
"short time" or "just once". Scientists have tried to establish
exposure thresholds, but this is speculation. The issue is how much
risk are you willing to accept rather than there being a threshold of
harm.


Exactly. There are no thresholds because scientists cannot determine
how much is required to cause a problem. Unlike drain cleaner, for
instance.

And there are a lot of things which cause cancer. Even artificial sugar
has been blamed for causing cancer. So are you going to stop using
anything containing artificial sugar?

I'm not going to debate this with you. Your comments show a lack of
understanding of the topic. As I already explained, there is no
evidence to show there is a threshold for most carcinogens. It is just
a matter of the level of risk incurred. More exposure, more risk. Less
exposure, less risk.


That's good, because you are "debating" from a position of ignorance on
the subject.

As to the artificial sugar issue, first you need to understand there is
no such substance as "artificial sugar" that has been shown to cause
cancer.


Wrong again.


Just in the last few years I learned that we have so extensively
polluted our environment that it is not recommended to eat the fish from
nearly any river in the several US states where I live. This pollution
is largely in the form of PCBs. It is not from point sources that can
be cleaned up. It is widespread from small sources. Essentially, we
integrated this stuff into our lives to the extent that we are regularly
bathed in it.


More scare tactics. Pollution from medications (especially hormones)
being flushed down the drain is a much bigger problem. So I guess we
should stop taking any medications.

Scare tactics??? Facts!!! I have no idea how you leap from PCBs to
medicine.


Just what I said. Your comments about PCBs in the rivers is pure scare
tactics. Show me proof from a *reliable source*. That doesn't include
some unknown person's blog on the internet.


It seems people believe our persistent destruction of the environment is
something that happens somewhere else or the harm is overblown or that
it is something that we will have to deal with in the future. But this
is not true. The future is here and we are all living in the results of
our own ignorance.


Which still has nothing to do with PCBs - except for scare tactics.

Ok, I guess there is no discussing the issue with you. Pollution by
PCBs is the poster child of how we are destroying our environment.


More bull****. PCBs were outlawed in the United States over 35 years
ago. Yet you still keep up with this crap.


BTW, unlike carcinogens, I can eat drain cleaner every day in adequately
small amounts. NaOH, Sodium Hydroxide. I have sodium in my diet as an
essential nutrient and hydroxide exists in all water solutions. NaOH is
not actually a poison, it is a corrosive. If you come into contact with
it in high concentrations it is harmful. In low concentrations it is
harmless in the true sense. I know this for a fact. Without harm, I
have handled NaOH in concentrations high enough that I can feel the
soapiness. So your analogy is poor.


No, you have sodium chloride (NaCl) in your diet, not NaOH. And even
small amounts of NaOH have been shown to be harmful - it is considered a
poison.

Can you cite any reference that "small" amounts of NaOH are harmful? I
know for a fact you are talking through your hat on this issue.


Yea, right.

"The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) allows sodium hydroxide as a
food additive in levels not to exceed 1%."

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaqs/tf.asp?id=248&tid=45

I think a food additive at 1% concentration shows it is clearly not a
poison in a conventional sense of the word. It is a corrosive at high
enough concentrations and that is the only mechanism that can cause harm
from NaOH. Well, that and being hit on the head with a 50 pound sack of
it.


Which does not mean it is not poisonous.

I'm not going to argue this with you. On many topics you just like to
argue and don't care about the facts.


I care about the facts. Let's see you present some, instead of your
usual bull****.

Where are your "reliable sources" that PCBs are a major problem?

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K

==================

On Tue, 27 Jan 2015 13:01:55 +0000, gareth wrote:

a series /
parallel arrangement of those dinky 100uF 35V SMD ones?

Ripple current?



--
He who throws dirt loses ground.

On 27/01/2015 17:41, gareth wrote:
"Rambo" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Jan 2015 14:49:49 +0000 (UTC), Custos Custodum
wrote:

"gareth" wrote in
:

The problems associated with replacing (or even obtaining) the HT
reservoir capacitors in valve projects might be replace with a series
/ parallel arrangement of those dinky 100uF 35V SMD ones?

There's still a significant market for valve-based guitar amplifiers, so
somebody must be making the HT capacitors for them.


Probably could be rolled up and placed inside the original aluminium
can, too!

Don't forget to include a suitable voltage divider chain.
Whats wrong with a 450volt rated cap?

Are they readily available?


All credit to you for posing the question Gareth, but real enthusiasts
know the answer as they take apart failed or obsolete equipment just out
of interest to see what is inside - and if anything is worth recovering.
Switch-mode PSUs - either as PSUs or as part of TVs, VDUs, printers
etc. etc. are a ready source of such capacitors. There's usually about
400v-worth of a couple of hundred microfarads of electrolytics in there.

Computer power supplies become dated so quickly - change of specs /
change of connector styles - that these caps are likely to have a fair
bit of life left in them - although they may over-smooth in a design
meant for the old combined 8+32uF - red spot for the 8 - that used to be
the bedrock of valve receiver PSUs.

PA

On 1/28/2015 11:57 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 1/28/2015 10:55 AM, rickman wrote:
On 1/28/2015 7:59 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 1/27/2015 11:18 PM, rickman wrote:
On 1/27/2015 10:37 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 1/27/2015 9:47 PM, rickman wrote:
On 1/27/2015 7:59 PM, Ralph Mowery wrote:
"Roger Hayter" wrote in message
...
The oils in these old capacitors are often PCBs (polychlorinated
bi-phenyls) which are quite toxic. And they can leak slightly
even if
not visibly. So I wouldn't have them in a house occupied by any
non-old
non-amateurs. (A bit late for me to take up H & S on my own
behalf.)


The PCB is not really that toxic. The problem is that it almost
does not
break down and gets into the food chain. You can touch it and even
get a
small ammount in your mouth without any harm to you. I don't mean
drink it,
but say you get some on your hand and lick a drop or two off your
finger.

Wow! What is your basis for saying that? Are you trying to say if it
doesn't kill you outright there is no danger?


He's right - it isn't really that toxic. It takes multiple exposures
over a long time to do any harm; getting some on your hands won't hurt
you. And even when it does harm you, it's not fatal. But it does
cause
nervous system disorders.

There are a lot of things much more toxic you can easily find, even at
the grocery store. Drain cleaner comes to mind...

I asked what the source of this "fact" is. PCBs cause cancer. I have
never heard exposure to a carcinogen is safe as long as it is only for a
"short time" or "just once". Scientists have tried to establish
exposure thresholds, but this is speculation. The issue is how much
risk are you willing to accept rather than there being a threshold of
harm.


Exactly. There are no thresholds because scientists cannot determine
how much is required to cause a problem. Unlike drain cleaner, for
instance.

And there are a lot of things which cause cancer. Even artificial sugar
has been blamed for causing cancer. So are you going to stop using
anything containing artificial sugar?

I'm not going to debate this with you. Your comments show a lack of
understanding of the topic. As I already explained, there is no
evidence to show there is a threshold for most carcinogens. It is just
a matter of the level of risk incurred. More exposure, more risk. Less
exposure, less risk.


That's good, because you are "debating" from a position of ignorance on
the subject.

As to the artificial sugar issue, first you need to understand there is
no such substance as "artificial sugar" that has been shown to cause
cancer.


Wrong again.


Just in the last few years I learned that we have so extensively
polluted our environment that it is not recommended to eat the fish from
nearly any river in the several US states where I live. This pollution
is largely in the form of PCBs. It is not from point sources that can
be cleaned up. It is widespread from small sources. Essentially, we
integrated this stuff into our lives to the extent that we are regularly
bathed in it.


More scare tactics. Pollution from medications (especially hormones)
being flushed down the drain is a much bigger problem. So I guess we
should stop taking any medications.

Scare tactics??? Facts!!! I have no idea how you leap from PCBs to
medicine.


Just what I said. Your comments about PCBs in the rivers is pure scare
tactics. Show me proof from a *reliable source*. That doesn't include
some unknown person's blog on the internet.


It seems people believe our persistent destruction of the environment is
something that happens somewhere else or the harm is overblown or that
it is something that we will have to deal with in the future. But this
is not true. The future is here and we are all living in the results of
our own ignorance.


Which still has nothing to do with PCBs - except for scare tactics.

Ok, I guess there is no discussing the issue with you. Pollution by
PCBs is the poster child of how we are destroying our environment.


More bull****. PCBs were outlawed in the United States over 35 years
ago. Yet you still keep up with this crap.


BTW, unlike carcinogens, I can eat drain cleaner every day in adequately
small amounts. NaOH, Sodium Hydroxide. I have sodium in my diet as an
essential nutrient and hydroxide exists in all water solutions. NaOH is
not actually a poison, it is a corrosive. If you come into contact with
it in high concentrations it is harmful. In low concentrations it is
harmless in the true sense. I know this for a fact. Without harm, I
have handled NaOH in concentrations high enough that I can feel the
soapiness. So your analogy is poor.


No, you have sodium chloride (NaCl) in your diet, not NaOH. And even
small amounts of NaOH have been shown to be harmful - it is considered a
poison.

Can you cite any reference that "small" amounts of NaOH are harmful? I
know for a fact you are talking through your hat on this issue.


Yea, right.

"The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) allows sodium hydroxide as a
food additive in levels not to exceed 1%."

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaqs/tf.asp?id=248&tid=45

I think a food additive at 1% concentration shows it is clearly not a
poison in a conventional sense of the word. It is a corrosive at high
enough concentrations and that is the only mechanism that can cause harm
from NaOH. Well, that and being hit on the head with a 50 pound sack of
it.


Which does not mean it is not poisonous.

I'm not going to argue this with you. On many topics you just like to
argue and don't care about the facts.


I care about the facts. Let's see you present some, instead of your
usual bull****.

Where are your "reliable sources" that PCBs are a major problem?

Jerry, you don't want to discuss this as a scientific issue, so I'm not
going to bother. Just do a little research and you will find everything
I have posted is true. Here, I'll give you a start...

http://bit.ly/15PNwBN

Have a nice day.

--

Rick

Have a nice day.


Rick

hate that phrase ......

On 1/28/2015 1:19 PM, rickman wrote:
On 1/28/2015 11:57 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 1/28/2015 10:55 AM, rickman wrote:
On 1/28/2015 7:59 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 1/27/2015 11:18 PM, rickman wrote:
On 1/27/2015 10:37 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 1/27/2015 9:47 PM, rickman wrote:
On 1/27/2015 7:59 PM, Ralph Mowery wrote:
"Roger Hayter" wrote in message
...
The oils in these old capacitors are often PCBs (polychlorinated
bi-phenyls) which are quite toxic. And they can leak slightly
even if
not visibly. So I wouldn't have them in a house occupied by any
non-old
non-amateurs. (A bit late for me to take up H & S on my own
behalf.)


The PCB is not really that toxic. The problem is that it almost
does not
break down and gets into the food chain. You can touch it and even
get a
small ammount in your mouth without any harm to you. I don't mean
drink it,
but say you get some on your hand and lick a drop or two off your
finger.

Wow! What is your basis for saying that? Are you trying to say
if it
doesn't kill you outright there is no danger?


He's right - it isn't really that toxic. It takes multiple exposures
over a long time to do any harm; getting some on your hands won't
hurt
you. And even when it does harm you, it's not fatal. But it does
cause
nervous system disorders.

There are a lot of things much more toxic you can easily find,
even at
the grocery store. Drain cleaner comes to mind...

I asked what the source of this "fact" is. PCBs cause cancer. I have
never heard exposure to a carcinogen is safe as long as it is only
for a
"short time" or "just once". Scientists have tried to establish
exposure thresholds, but this is speculation. The issue is how much
risk are you willing to accept rather than there being a threshold of
harm.


Exactly. There are no thresholds because scientists cannot determine
how much is required to cause a problem. Unlike drain cleaner, for
instance.

And there are a lot of things which cause cancer. Even artificial
sugar
has been blamed for causing cancer. So are you going to stop using
anything containing artificial sugar?

I'm not going to debate this with you. Your comments show a lack of
understanding of the topic. As I already explained, there is no
evidence to show there is a threshold for most carcinogens. It is just
a matter of the level of risk incurred. More exposure, more risk. Less
exposure, less risk.


That's good, because you are "debating" from a position of ignorance on
the subject.

As to the artificial sugar issue, first you need to understand there is
no such substance as "artificial sugar" that has been shown to cause
cancer.


Wrong again.


Just in the last few years I learned that we have so extensively
polluted our environment that it is not recommended to eat the fish
from
nearly any river in the several US states where I live. This
pollution
is largely in the form of PCBs. It is not from point sources that can
be cleaned up. It is widespread from small sources. Essentially, we
integrated this stuff into our lives to the extent that we are
regularly
bathed in it.


More scare tactics. Pollution from medications (especially hormones)
being flushed down the drain is a much bigger problem. So I guess we
should stop taking any medications.

Scare tactics??? Facts!!! I have no idea how you leap from PCBs to
medicine.


Just what I said. Your comments about PCBs in the rivers is pure scare
tactics. Show me proof from a *reliable source*. That doesn't include
some unknown person's blog on the internet.


It seems people believe our persistent destruction of the
environment is
something that happens somewhere else or the harm is overblown or that
it is something that we will have to deal with in the future. But
this
is not true. The future is here and we are all living in the
results of
our own ignorance.


Which still has nothing to do with PCBs - except for scare tactics.

Ok, I guess there is no discussing the issue with you. Pollution by
PCBs is the poster child of how we are destroying our environment.


More bull****. PCBs were outlawed in the United States over 35 years
ago. Yet you still keep up with this crap.


BTW, unlike carcinogens, I can eat drain cleaner every day in
adequately
small amounts. NaOH, Sodium Hydroxide. I have sodium in my diet
as an
essential nutrient and hydroxide exists in all water solutions.
NaOH is
not actually a poison, it is a corrosive. If you come into contact
with
it in high concentrations it is harmful. In low concentrations it is
harmless in the true sense. I know this for a fact. Without harm, I
have handled NaOH in concentrations high enough that I can feel the
soapiness. So your analogy is poor.


No, you have sodium chloride (NaCl) in your diet, not NaOH. And even
small amounts of NaOH have been shown to be harmful - it is
considered a
poison.

Can you cite any reference that "small" amounts of NaOH are harmful? I
know for a fact you are talking through your hat on this issue.


Yea, right.

"The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) allows sodium hydroxide as a
food additive in levels not to exceed 1%."

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaqs/tf.asp?id=248&tid=45

I think a food additive at 1% concentration shows it is clearly not a
poison in a conventional sense of the word. It is a corrosive at high
enough concentrations and that is the only mechanism that can cause harm
from NaOH. Well, that and being hit on the head with a 50 pound sack of
it.


Which does not mean it is not poisonous.

I'm not going to argue this with you. On many topics you just like to
argue and don't care about the facts.


I care about the facts. Let's see you present some, instead of your
usual bull****.

Where are your "reliable sources" that PCBs are a major problem?

Jerry, you don't want to discuss this as a scientific issue, so I'm not
going to bother. Just do a little research and you will find everything
I have posted is true. Here, I'll give you a start...

http://bit.ly/15PNwBN

Have a nice day.


I do want to discuss this as a scientific issue. Let me know when you
have some science to back you up.

For instance - from the epa.gov site in your link:

"What are polychlorinated biphenyls's health effects?
Some people who drink water containing polychlorinated biphenyls well in
excess of the maximum contaminant level (MCL) for many years could
experience changes in their skin, problems with their thymus gland,
immune deficiencies, or reproductive or nervous system difficulties, and
may have an increased risk of getting cancer."

Hardly the scare mongering you propound.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle

==================

"Peter Able" stuck@home wrote in message
o.uk...
On 27/01/2015 17:41, gareth wrote:
..

Computer power supplies become dated so quickly - change of specs / change
of connector styles - that these caps are likely to have a fair bit of
life left in them - although they may over-smooth in a design meant for
the old combined 8+32uF - red spot for the 8 - that used to be the bedrock
of valve receiver PSUs.


When not using the origional value of capacitor in the power supply it is
important not to go too large. If the supply has a tube rectifier, the tube
will have a maximum capacitor rating. Too large of a value is bad for the
tube. If way too large and simiconductors are used for rectifiers, they can
become a problem also. Mainlly blown fuses when the supply is turned on
unless a soft start is included. That is usually a resistor in the primary
line that is shorted out after a second or so.

Every switch PSU uses high voltage capacitors

On 28/01/2015 19:54, Ralph Mowery wrote:
"Peter Able" stuck@home wrote in message
o.uk...
On 27/01/2015 17:41, gareth wrote:
.

Computer power supplies become dated so quickly - change of specs / change
of connector styles - that these caps are likely to have a fair bit of
life left in them - although they may over-smooth in a design meant for
the old combined 8+32uF - red spot for the 8 - that used to be the bedrock
of valve receiver PSUs.


When not using the origional value of capacitor in the power supply it is
important not to go too large. If the supply has a tube rectifier, the tube
will have a maximum capacitor rating. Too large of a value is bad for the
tube. If way too large and simiconductors are used for rectifiers, they can
become a problem also. Mainlly blown fuses when the supply is turned on
unless a soft start is included. That is usually a resistor in the primary
line that is shorted out after a second or so.


Hence my warning about a design specifying 8uF, Ralph. What will narrow
the gap will be that several ex-SMPSU capacitors will be used in series
- so the effective will be less than the individual capacitance.

As for limiting inrush, the transformer secondary and rectifier
impedances will, hopefully, take care of that - but as you write, these
things should be considered.

I wonder how much carnage was caused by those rectifier replacements for
valves which were a set of semiconductor rectifiers potted in an
International Octal body plug? Plug-in replacements - like hell !!

As for fusing - I guess that one can still get slow-blow fuses?

PA