On 5/03/2024 8:17 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Mar 2024 16:41:40 -0800, john larkin <jl@650pot.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 04 Mar 2024 23:03:05 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 04 Mar 2024 09:16:53 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 04 Mar 2024 15:55:53 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 18:28:46 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 04 Mar 2024 00:31:27 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 16:22:12 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 23:50:08 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 15:16:12 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 22:41:09 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 13:28:05 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 18:03:51 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Using my Peak ESR/Capacitance meter, I was carrying out in-circuit
>>>>>>>>>>>>> checks on large electros in the linear PSU I've previously mentioned
>>>>>>>>>>>>> here. I was getting a lot of "in-circuit/leaky" warnings for two of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> them, so I pulled them out completely and am getting the same warning
>>>>>>>>>>>>> when they're checked out of circuit, which surprised me as it's
>>>>>>>>>>>>> unusual IME. Anyway, the leak would have to be very bad to result in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ripple, would it not? AFAIK, the leading culprit for ripple is caps
>>>>>>>>>>>>> which have lost a significant amount of capacitance or else developed
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a very large ESR. Do I have that right?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd like a "second opinion" as it were on the leakiness of these caps.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> What's the best old-school method for testing for this? I just want to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ensure the ESR meter isn't faulty (highly unlikely but the possibility
>>>>>>>>>>>>> must be eliminated to be sure).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> CD.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> PS: the aforementioned caps are 47000uF 16V Vishay ones - and I have a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> brand new spare that's also testing as "leaky"!
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> How leaky? You could apply 16 volts and measure current for a while.
>>>>>>>>>>>> It will typically taper off over some minutes or hours.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Well, the 'perfect cap' in series with an ammeter will cause an
>>>>>>>>>>> initial surge of current which will taper off over time and eventually
>>>>>>>>>>> settle at zero. But a leaky cap will continue to pass a small amount
>>>>>>>>>>> of current, I would assume, indefinitely? Again, I would guess that a
>>>>>>>>>>> real-world cap in good condition would continue to pass a tiny amount
>>>>>>>>>>> of current - a negligible amount?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> An electrolytic is hardly a perfect cap. After the theoretical cap
>>>>>>>>>> charge, you might see some mA of leakage, tapering off to uA's after
>>>>>>>>>> some minutes or hours.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If the current ever increases, as it will at some voltage above rated,
>>>>>>>>>> it's probably on its way to destruction.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Get a power supply and an ammeter and experiment. Your capmeter is
>>>>>>>>>> obviously not telling you much.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Just spotted the meter only covers up to 22,000uF!
>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't trust C or L meters, especially for large C or L values, or
>>>>>>>> cheap meters.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How would you test for leakage, then?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Power supply and DVM.
>>>>>
>>>>> But then how do you determine - given that electrolytics come in all
>>>>> sorts of votlage and temperature ratings, capacitance values etc - how
>>>>> much leakage current in each case is "too much" leakage current
>>>>> rendering the cap unsuitable for use?
>>>>
>>>> That's for you to decide. No instrument is going to have red and green
>>>> LEDs to tell you if a cap is suitable for your circuit.
>>>
>>> That's not how cap testers work, though. They take virtually none of
>>> the following into account:-
>>>
>>>> Gross capacitance
>>>> C vs voltage
>>>> C vs temperature
>>>> Leakage vs temperature and voltage, both polarities
>>>> Dielectric absorption
>>>> Failure voltage or current
>>>> ESR vs temperature
>>>> ESL
>>>> Lifetime
>>>> Power dissipation/cooling
>>>> Solderability/washability
>>>>
>>>> One should measure or calculate whichever of those might matter in
>>>> your circuit.
>>>>
>>>> Post your circuit and we can talk about it.
>>>
>>> No circuit involved. The question relates to generic smoothing caps of
>>> linear power supplies.
>>
>> Where in a circuit is a "smoothing" cap? Oops, sorry, there is no
>> circuit.
>
> Yes, there's no circuit. Marconi/Aeroflex never published one and and
> a lot of their designs are still under wraps. It's a real PITA.

If you are repairing the units, you should be able to trace that bit of
the circuit. It isn't going to be complicated.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 20:58:49 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:

>On 5/03/2024 8:17 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> On Mon, 04 Mar 2024 16:41:40 -0800, john larkin <jl@650pot.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 04 Mar 2024 23:03:05 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 04 Mar 2024 09:16:53 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 04 Mar 2024 15:55:53 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 18:28:46 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, 04 Mar 2024 00:31:27 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 16:22:12 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 23:50:08 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 15:16:12 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 22:41:09 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 13:28:05 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 18:03:51 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Using my Peak ESR/Capacitance meter, I was carrying out in-circuit
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> checks on large electros in the linear PSU I've previously mentioned
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> here. I was getting a lot of "in-circuit/leaky" warnings for two of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them, so I pulled them out completely and am getting the same warning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when they're checked out of circuit, which surprised me as it's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unusual IME. Anyway, the leak would have to be very bad to result in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ripple, would it not? AFAIK, the leading culprit for ripple is caps
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which have lost a significant amount of capacitance or else developed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a very large ESR. Do I have that right?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd like a "second opinion" as it were on the leakiness of these caps.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What's the best old-school method for testing for this? I just want to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ensure the ESR meter isn't faulty (highly unlikely but the possibility
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> must be eliminated to be sure).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CD.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PS: the aforementioned caps are 47000uF 16V Vishay ones - and I have a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> brand new spare that's also testing as "leaky"!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> How leaky? You could apply 16 volts and measure current for a while.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It will typically taper off over some minutes or hours.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, the 'perfect cap' in series with an ammeter will cause an
>>>>>>>>>>>> initial surge of current which will taper off over time and eventually
>>>>>>>>>>>> settle at zero. But a leaky cap will continue to pass a small amount
>>>>>>>>>>>> of current, I would assume, indefinitely? Again, I would guess that a
>>>>>>>>>>>> real-world cap in good condition would continue to pass a tiny amount
>>>>>>>>>>>> of current - a negligible amount?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> An electrolytic is hardly a perfect cap. After the theoretical cap
>>>>>>>>>>> charge, you might see some mA of leakage, tapering off to uA's after
>>>>>>>>>>> some minutes or hours.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If the current ever increases, as it will at some voltage above rated,
>>>>>>>>>>> it's probably on its way to destruction.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Get a power supply and an ammeter and experiment. Your capmeter is
>>>>>>>>>>> obviously not telling you much.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Just spotted the meter only covers up to 22,000uF!
>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't trust C or L meters, especially for large C or L values, or
>>>>>>>>> cheap meters.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How would you test for leakage, then?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Power supply and DVM.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But then how do you determine - given that electrolytics come in all
>>>>>> sorts of votlage and temperature ratings, capacitance values etc - how
>>>>>> much leakage current in each case is "too much" leakage current
>>>>>> rendering the cap unsuitable for use?
>>>>>
>>>>> That's for you to decide. No instrument is going to have red and green
>>>>> LEDs to tell you if a cap is suitable for your circuit.
>>>>
>>>> That's not how cap testers work, though. They take virtually none of
>>>> the following into account:-
>>>>
>>>>> Gross capacitance
>>>>> C vs voltage
>>>>> C vs temperature
>>>>> Leakage vs temperature and voltage, both polarities
>>>>> Dielectric absorption
>>>>> Failure voltage or current
>>>>> ESR vs temperature
>>>>> ESL
>>>>> Lifetime
>>>>> Power dissipation/cooling
>>>>> Solderability/washability
>>>>>
>>>>> One should measure or calculate whichever of those might matter in
>>>>> your circuit.
>>>>>
>>>>> Post your circuit and we can talk about it.
>>>>
>>>> No circuit involved. The question relates to generic smoothing caps of
>>>> linear power supplies.
>>>
>>> Where in a circuit is a "smoothing" cap? Oops, sorry, there is no
>>> circuit.
>>
>> Yes, there's no circuit. Marconi/Aeroflex never published one and and
>> a lot of their designs are still under wraps. It's a real PITA.
>
>If you are repairing the units, you should be able to trace that bit of
>the circuit. It isn't going to be complicated.

Ordinarily it would be a piece of cake, but they seem to have gone out
of their way to make access as difficult as possible.

On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 20:56:01 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:

>On 5/03/2024 8:30 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 12:52:04 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
>>> On 5/03/2024 2:50 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 15:29:02 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
>>>>> On 4/03/2024 5:03 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>> This might have been the information you needed, if you knew enough to
>>> process it. The placement of your response suggests that you don't.
>>
>> Your remarks were so trite they didn't bear a response. Everyone here
>> knows electrolytic caps need to be re-formed if they've been unused
>> for any significant length of time.
>
>But you didn't mention it in your original post, and clearly don't
>appreciate what it is actually doing.

Ah, that must be it. Over 60 years of hobby electronics and I never
knew that. Thanks for spoon-feeding me that vital tidbit, Bill. How
would we ever manage without you?

>> It's vintage scope repair 101 and even you must be aware restoring vintage scopes is my prime interest
>> in the subject. God knows I've posted enough about it over the years!
>
>I'm sure you know about it as a ritual you have learned to perform. You
>didn't actually comprehend what you were doing, any more than you did
>when you acted out what you thought was researching the climate change
>literature, and were actually performing a trawl through the unreliable
>early results to cherry-pick those few results that suited your daft
>hypothesis.

Sorry, Bill. I'm not biting today. You'll have to get a bit more
inventive if you want to suck me into another of your pointless
pissing contests.

On 5/03/2024 11:16 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 20:58:49 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
>> On 5/03/2024 8:17 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>> On Mon, 04 Mar 2024 16:41:40 -0800, john larkin <jl@650pot.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 04 Mar 2024 23:03:05 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 04 Mar 2024 09:16:53 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 04 Mar 2024 15:55:53 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 18:28:46 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 04 Mar 2024 00:31:27 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 16:22:12 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 23:50:08 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 15:16:12 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 22:41:09 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 13:28:05 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 18:03:51 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:

>>> Yes, there's no circuit. Marconi/Aeroflex never published one and and
>>> a lot of their designs are still under wraps. It's a real PITA.
>>
>> If you are repairing the units, you should be able to trace that bit of
>> the circuit. It isn't going to be complicated.
>
> Ordinarily it would be a piece of cake, but they seem to have gone out
> of their way to make access as difficult as possible.

Really?

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On 5/03/2024 11:21 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 20:56:01 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
> wrote:
>
>> On 5/03/2024 8:30 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>> On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 12:52:04 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
>>>> On 5/03/2024 2:50 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 15:29:02 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/03/2024 5:03 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>> This might have been the information you needed, if you knew enough to
>>>> process it. The placement of your response suggests that you don't.
>>>
>>> Your remarks were so trite they didn't bear a response. Everyone here
>>> knows electrolytic caps need to be re-formed if they've been unused
>>> for any significant length of time.
>>
>> But you didn't mention it in your original post, and clearly don't
>> appreciate what it is actually doing.
>
> Ah, that must be it. Over 60 years of hobby electronics and I never
> knew that. Thanks for spoon-feeding me that vital tidbit, Bill. How
> would we ever manage without you?

You don't manage all that well. The vital tit-bit of information came
from electrochemistry, which isn't covered in detail in hobby
electronics, but was part of my undergraduate chemistry course - John
Larkin's did at least first year chemistry too, but robablyu wasn't
paying attention to that bit of the course.

>>> It's vintage scope repair 101 and even you must be aware restoring vintage scopes is my prime interest
>>> in the subject. God knows I've posted enough about it over the years!
>>
>> I'm sure you know about it as a ritual you have learned to perform. You
>> didn't actually comprehend what you were doing, any more than you did
>> when you acted out what you thought was researching the climate change
>> literature, and were actually performing a trawl through the unreliable
>> early results to cherry-pick those few results that suited your daft
>> hypothesis.
>
> Sorry, Bill. I'm not biting today. You'll have to get a bit more
> inventive if you want to suck me into another of your pointless
> pissing contests.

The kind that involves you telling everybody that you know more about
anthropogenic global warming than the academic experts on the subject,
because you studied some dubious data published in the 1890's, and have
ignored all the work that has been done since then?

That's more of a crapping contest - with all the crap coming from you.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 00:33:23 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:

>On 5/03/2024 11:16 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 20:58:49 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
>>> On 5/03/2024 8:17 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 04 Mar 2024 16:41:40 -0800, john larkin <jl@650pot.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 04 Mar 2024 23:03:05 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 04 Mar 2024 09:16:53 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 04 Mar 2024 15:55:53 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 18:28:46 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 04 Mar 2024 00:31:27 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 16:22:12 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 23:50:08 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 15:16:12 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 22:41:09 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 13:28:05 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 18:03:51 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Yes, there's no circuit. Marconi/Aeroflex never published one and and
>>>> a lot of their designs are still under wraps. It's a real PITA.
>>>
>>> If you are repairing the units, you should be able to trace that bit of
>>> the circuit. It isn't going to be complicated.
>>
>> Ordinarily it would be a piece of cake, but they seem to have gone out
>> of their way to make access as difficult as possible.
>
>Really?

Oh yes. No doubt a professional repair technician would find a way
around it, but it's above my pay grade.

On 3/5/24 13:21, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 20:56:01 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
> wrote:
[...]
>>
>> I'm sure you know about it as a ritual you have learned to perform. You
>> didn't actually comprehend what you were doing, [...]
>
> Sorry, Bill. I'm not biting today. You'll have to get a bit more
> inventive if you want to suck me into another of your pointless
> pissing contests.

Would you please do us all the courtesy of ignoring him?

Jeroen Belleman

On 5 Mar 2024 at 13:45:55 GMT, "Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

> On 5/03/2024 11:21 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 20:56:01 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/03/2024 8:30 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 12:52:04 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
>>>>> On 5/03/2024 2:50 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 15:29:02 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/03/2024 5:03 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>>> This might have been the information you needed, if you knew enough to
>>>>> process it. The placement of your response suggests that you don't.
>>>>
>>>> Your remarks were so trite they didn't bear a response. Everyone here
>>>> knows electrolytic caps need to be re-formed if they've been unused
>>>> for any significant length of time.
>>>
>>> But you didn't mention it in your original post, and clearly don't
>>> appreciate what it is actually doing.
>>
>> Ah, that must be it. Over 60 years of hobby electronics and I never
>> knew that. Thanks for spoon-feeding me that vital tidbit, Bill. How
>> would we ever manage without you?
>
> You don't manage all that well. The vital tit-bit of information came
> from electrochemistry, which isn't covered in detail in hobby
> electronics, but was part of my undergraduate chemistry course - John
> Larkin's did at least first year chemistry too, but robablyu wasn't
> paying attention to that bit of the course.

You mean there's a *syllabus* for hobby electronics?

--
Roger Hayter

On 5 Mar 2024 19:24:09 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:

>On 5 Mar 2024 at 13:45:55 GMT, "Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
>
>> On 5/03/2024 11:21 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>> On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 20:56:01 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/03/2024 8:30 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 12:52:04 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/03/2024 2:50 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 15:29:02 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/03/2024 5:03 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>>> This might have been the information you needed, if you knew enough to
>>>>>> process it. The placement of your response suggests that you don't.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your remarks were so trite they didn't bear a response. Everyone here
>>>>> knows electrolytic caps need to be re-formed if they've been unused
>>>>> for any significant length of time.
>>>>
>>>> But you didn't mention it in your original post, and clearly don't
>>>> appreciate what it is actually doing.
>>>
>>> Ah, that must be it. Over 60 years of hobby electronics and I never
>>> knew that. Thanks for spoon-feeding me that vital tidbit, Bill. How
>>> would we ever manage without you?
>>
>> You don't manage all that well. The vital tit-bit of information came
>> from electrochemistry, which isn't covered in detail in hobby
>> electronics, but was part of my undergraduate chemistry course - John
>> Larkin's did at least first year chemistry too, but robablyu wasn't
>> paying attention to that bit of the course.
>
>You mean there's a *syllabus* for hobby electronics?

I seem to have missed the freshman chemistry classes about
electrolytic capacitors. I was robablyu out sailing or something.

In sci.electronics.design Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
> On 3/5/24 13:21, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 20:56:01 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
>> wrote:
> [...]
>>>
>>> I'm sure you know about it as a ritual you have learned to perform. You
>>> didn't actually comprehend what you were doing, [...]
>>
>> Sorry, Bill. I'm not biting today. You'll have to get a bit more
>> inventive if you want to suck me into another of your pointless
>> pissing contests.
>
> Would you please do us all the courtesy of ignoring him?

Yes, the classic example of the personality type that always has to
have the last word, Bill is.

So every time CD responds, required to respond in kind, Bill is, the
last word, in order to have.

To infinity unless CD stops responding first, this will continue.

On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 19:36:13 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

>On 3/5/24 13:21, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 20:56:01 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
>> wrote:
>[...]
>>>
>>> I'm sure you know about it as a ritual you have learned to perform. You
>>> didn't actually comprehend what you were doing, [...]
>>
>> Sorry, Bill. I'm not biting today. You'll have to get a bit more
>> inventive if you want to suck me into another of your pointless
>> pissing contests.
>
>Would you please do us all the courtesy of ignoring him?
>
>Jeroen Belleman

I'll try. I'll really try.

On 6/03/2024 6:24 am, Roger Hayter wrote:
> On 5 Mar 2024 at 13:45:55 GMT, "Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
>
>> On 5/03/2024 11:21 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>> On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 20:56:01 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/03/2024 8:30 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 12:52:04 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/03/2024 2:50 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 15:29:02 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/03/2024 5:03 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>>> This might have been the information you needed, if you knew enough to
>>>>>> process it. The placement of your response suggests that you don't.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your remarks were so trite they didn't bear a response. Everyone here
>>>>> knows electrolytic caps need to be re-formed if they've been unused
>>>>> for any significant length of time.
>>>>
>>>> But you didn't mention it in your original post, and clearly don't
>>>> appreciate what it is actually doing.
>>>
>>> Ah, that must be it. Over 60 years of hobby electronics and I never
>>> knew that. Thanks for spoon-feeding me that vital tidbit, Bill. How
>>> would we ever manage without you?
>>
>> You don't manage all that well. The vital tit-bit of information came
>> from electro-chemistry, which isn't covered in detail in hobby
>> electronics, but was part of my undergraduate chemistry course - John
>> Larkin's did at least first year chemistry too, but probably wasn't
>> paying attention to that bit of the course.
>
> You mean there's a *syllabus* for hobby electronics?

In the sense that you do have to learn stuff to be able be good enough
at it for it to be worth pursuing as a hobby. Cursitor Doom hasn't
learned all that much, and he resents having his short-comings pointed out.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On 6/03/2024 6:43 am, john larkin wrote:
> On 5 Mar 2024 19:24:09 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
>
>> On 5 Mar 2024 at 13:45:55 GMT, "Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/03/2024 11:21 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 20:56:01 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/03/2024 8:30 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 12:52:04 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/03/2024 2:50 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 15:29:02 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/03/2024 5:03 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> This might have been the information you needed, if you knew enough to
>>>>>>> process it. The placement of your response suggests that you don't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your remarks were so trite they didn't bear a response. Everyone here
>>>>>> knows electrolytic caps need to be re-formed if they've been unused
>>>>>> for any significant length of time.
>>>>>
>>>>> But you didn't mention it in your original post, and clearly don't
>>>>> appreciate what it is actually doing.
>>>>
>>>> Ah, that must be it. Over 60 years of hobby electronics and I never
>>>> knew that. Thanks for spoon-feeding me that vital tidbit, Bill. How
>>>> would we ever manage without you?
>>>
>>> You don't manage all that well. The vital tit-bit of information came
>>> from electrochemistry, which isn't covered in detail in hobby
>>> electronics, but was part of my undergraduate chemistry course - John
>>> Larkin's did at least first year chemistry too, but robablyu wasn't
>>> paying attention to that bit of the course.
>>
>> You mean there's a *syllabus* for hobby electronics?
>
> I seem to have missed the freshman chemistry classes about
> electrolytic capacitors. I was probably out sailing or something.

It wasn't explicitly about electrolytic capacitors - if there was
practical reference it was to anodising aluminium, with a passing
reference to why you didn't have to anodise chromium or stainless steel.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On 6/03/2024 10:10 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 19:36:13 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
> <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
>
>> On 3/5/24 13:21, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>> On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 20:56:01 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
>>> wrote:
>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> I'm sure you know about it as a ritual you have learned to perform. You
>>>> didn't actually comprehend what you were doing, [...]
>>>
>>> Sorry, Bill. I'm not biting today. You'll have to get a bit more
>>> inventive if you want to suck me into another of your pointless
>>> pissing contests.
>>
>> Would you please do us all the courtesy of ignoring him?
>
> I'll try. I'll really try.

And he will fail.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On 6/03/2024 8:13 am, darius wrote:
> In sci.electronics.design Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
>> On 3/5/24 13:21, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>> On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 20:56:01 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
>>> wrote:
>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> I'm sure you know about it as a ritual you have learned to perform. You
>>>> didn't actually comprehend what you were doing, [...]
>>>
>>> Sorry, Bill. I'm not biting today. You'll have to get a bit more
>>> inventive if you want to suck me into another of your pointless
>>> pissing contests.
>>
>> Would you please do us all the courtesy of ignoring him?
>
> Yes, the classic example of the personality type that always has to
> have the last word, Bill is.

Only if the last word strikes me as worth saying.

> So every time CD responds, required to respond in kind, Bill is, the
> last word, in order to have.

Darius would know about that - he has been calling everybody here an
off-topic troll for at least a year now,

> To infinity unless CD stops responding first, this will continue.

Darius is an even more horrible example than Cursitor Doom. Cursitor
Doom at least goes through the motions of providing an intellectual
justification for his mindless carping.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 13:11:00 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:

>On 6/03/2024 6:24 am, Roger Hayter wrote:
>> On 5 Mar 2024 at 13:45:55 GMT, "Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/03/2024 11:21 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 20:56:01 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/03/2024 8:30 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 12:52:04 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/03/2024 2:50 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 15:29:02 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/03/2024 5:03 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> This might have been the information you needed, if you knew enough to
>>>>>>> process it. The placement of your response suggests that you don't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your remarks were so trite they didn't bear a response. Everyone here
>>>>>> knows electrolytic caps need to be re-formed if they've been unused
>>>>>> for any significant length of time.
>>>>>
>>>>> But you didn't mention it in your original post, and clearly don't
>>>>> appreciate what it is actually doing.
>>>>
>>>> Ah, that must be it. Over 60 years of hobby electronics and I never
>>>> knew that. Thanks for spoon-feeding me that vital tidbit, Bill. How
>>>> would we ever manage without you?
>>>
>>> You don't manage all that well. The vital tit-bit of information came
>>> from electro-chemistry, which isn't covered in detail in hobby
>>> electronics, but was part of my undergraduate chemistry course - John
>>> Larkin's did at least first year chemistry too, but probably wasn't
>>> paying attention to that bit of the course.
>>
>> You mean there's a *syllabus* for hobby electronics?
>
>In the sense that you do have to learn stuff to be able be good enough
>at it for it to be worth pursuing as a hobby. Cursitor Doom hasn't
>learned all that much, and he resents having his short-comings pointed out.

I'm deeply honoured that you're making the exact same criticism of me
as you make of John Larkin, Bill. That's a hell of a compliment for me
as a mere hobbyist. Thanks!

On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 13:18:46 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:

>On 6/03/2024 10:10 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 19:36:13 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
>> <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/5/24 13:21, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 20:56:01 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm sure you know about it as a ritual you have learned to perform. You
>>>>> didn't actually comprehend what you were doing, [...]
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, Bill. I'm not biting today. You'll have to get a bit more
>>>> inventive if you want to suck me into another of your pointless
>>>> pissing contests.
>>>
>>> Would you please do us all the courtesy of ignoring him?
>>
>> I'll try. I'll really try.
>
>And he will fail.

No Bill, I shall not. You think you can drag me back into your endless
and pointless to-and-fro exchanges by misrepresenting my research and
attempting to undermine it. And I'm jolly well not falling for it.

On Wed, 06 Mar 2024 18:00:28 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
wrote:

>On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 13:11:00 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
>wrote:
>
>>On 6/03/2024 6:24 am, Roger Hayter wrote:
>>> On 5 Mar 2024 at 13:45:55 GMT, "Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/03/2024 11:21 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 20:56:01 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/03/2024 8:30 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 12:52:04 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/03/2024 2:50 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 15:29:02 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/03/2024 5:03 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This might have been the information you needed, if you knew enough to
>>>>>>>> process it. The placement of your response suggests that you don't.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your remarks were so trite they didn't bear a response. Everyone here
>>>>>>> knows electrolytic caps need to be re-formed if they've been unused
>>>>>>> for any significant length of time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But you didn't mention it in your original post, and clearly don't
>>>>>> appreciate what it is actually doing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ah, that must be it. Over 60 years of hobby electronics and I never
>>>>> knew that. Thanks for spoon-feeding me that vital tidbit, Bill. How
>>>>> would we ever manage without you?
>>>>
>>>> You don't manage all that well. The vital tit-bit of information came
>>>> from electro-chemistry, which isn't covered in detail in hobby
>>>> electronics, but was part of my undergraduate chemistry course - John
>>>> Larkin's did at least first year chemistry too, but probably wasn't
>>>> paying attention to that bit of the course.
>>>
>>> You mean there's a *syllabus* for hobby electronics?
>>
>>In the sense that you do have to learn stuff to be able be good enough
>>at it for it to be worth pursuing as a hobby. Cursitor Doom hasn't
>>learned all that much, and he resents having his short-comings pointed out.
>
>I'm deeply honoured that you're making the exact same criticism of me
>as you make of John Larkin, Bill. That's a hell of a compliment for me
>as a mere hobbyist. Thanks!

Ignore him! You are rasslin with a pig and he enjoys it.

But an electronic hobbyist is not "mere". It's a cool thing to do.

I note that he's editing his absurd mis-spelling of "probably", even
in my posts and his replies.

On Wed, 06 Mar 2024 18:03:37 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
wrote:

>On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 13:18:46 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
>wrote:
>
>>On 6/03/2024 10:10 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>> On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 19:36:13 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
>>> <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/5/24 13:21, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 20:56:01 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm sure you know about it as a ritual you have learned to perform. You
>>>>>> didn't actually comprehend what you were doing, [...]
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry, Bill. I'm not biting today. You'll have to get a bit more
>>>>> inventive if you want to suck me into another of your pointless
>>>>> pissing contests.
>>>>
>>>> Would you please do us all the courtesy of ignoring him?
>>>
>>> I'll try. I'll really try.
>>
>>And he will fail.
>
>No Bill, I shall not. You think you can drag me back into your endless
>and pointless to-and-fro exchanges by misrepresenting my research and
>attempting to undermine it. And I'm jolly well not falling for it.

OK, *never* respond to him again. Never.

In sci.electronics.design Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 13:18:46 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
> wrote:
>
>>On 6/03/2024 10:10 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>> On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 19:36:13 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
>>> <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/5/24 13:21, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 20:56:01 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm sure you know about it as a ritual you have learned to perform. You
>>>>>> didn't actually comprehend what you were doing, [...]
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry, Bill. I'm not biting today. You'll have to get a bit more
>>>>> inventive if you want to suck me into another of your pointless
>>>>> pissing contests.
>>>>
>>>> Would you please do us all the courtesy of ignoring him?
>>>
>>> I'll try. I'll really try.
>>
>>And he will fail.
>
> No Bill, I shall not. You think you can drag me back into your endless
> and pointless to-and-fro exchanges by misrepresenting my research and
> attempting to undermine it. And I'm jolly well not falling for it.

And, yet... you fell for it, like a moth to a flame.

Ignoring him means: "do not post a reply (any reply) to *anything* he
says".

But you won't be able to stop either, because you suffer from the same
mental damage that Darius pointed out that Bill also suffers from.
Both of you feel you must have "the last word".

On Wed, 06 Mar 2024 10:18:00 -0800, john larkin <jl@650pot.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 06 Mar 2024 18:00:28 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 13:11:00 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On 6/03/2024 6:24 am, Roger Hayter wrote:
>>>> On 5 Mar 2024 at 13:45:55 GMT, "Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/03/2024 11:21 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 20:56:01 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 5/03/2024 8:30 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 12:52:04 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/03/2024 2:50 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 15:29:02 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/03/2024 5:03 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This might have been the information you needed, if you knew enough to
>>>>>>>>> process it. The placement of your response suggests that you don't.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Your remarks were so trite they didn't bear a response. Everyone here
>>>>>>>> knows electrolytic caps need to be re-formed if they've been unused
>>>>>>>> for any significant length of time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But you didn't mention it in your original post, and clearly don't
>>>>>>> appreciate what it is actually doing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ah, that must be it. Over 60 years of hobby electronics and I never
>>>>>> knew that. Thanks for spoon-feeding me that vital tidbit, Bill. How
>>>>>> would we ever manage without you?
>>>>>
>>>>> You don't manage all that well. The vital tit-bit of information came
>>>>> from electro-chemistry, which isn't covered in detail in hobby
>>>>> electronics, but was part of my undergraduate chemistry course - John
>>>>> Larkin's did at least first year chemistry too, but probably wasn't
>>>>> paying attention to that bit of the course.
>>>>
>>>> You mean there's a *syllabus* for hobby electronics?
>>>
>>>In the sense that you do have to learn stuff to be able be good enough
>>>at it for it to be worth pursuing as a hobby. Cursitor Doom hasn't
>>>learned all that much, and he resents having his short-comings pointed out.
>>
>>I'm deeply honoured that you're making the exact same criticism of me
>>as you make of John Larkin, Bill. That's a hell of a compliment for me
>>as a mere hobbyist. Thanks!
>
>Ignore him! You are rasslin with a pig and he enjoys it.
>
>But an electronic hobbyist is not "mere". It's a cool thing to do.
>
>I note that he's editing his absurd mis-spelling of "probably", even
>in my posts and his replies.

Yes, I spotted that. I had a good laugh when I saw what you did in the
prevous post. :-D

On Wed, 06 Mar 2024 19:08:02 GMT, Keegan Major
<keegan.major@hotmail.com> wrote:

>In sci.electronics.design Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 13:18:46 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On 6/03/2024 10:10 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 19:36:13 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
>>>> <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 3/5/24 13:21, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 20:56:01 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm sure you know about it as a ritual you have learned to perform. You
>>>>>>> didn't actually comprehend what you were doing, [...]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry, Bill. I'm not biting today. You'll have to get a bit more
>>>>>> inventive if you want to suck me into another of your pointless
>>>>>> pissing contests.
>>>>>
>>>>> Would you please do us all the courtesy of ignoring him?
>>>>
>>>> I'll try. I'll really try.
>>>
>>>And he will fail.
>>
>> No Bill, I shall not. You think you can drag me back into your endless
>> and pointless to-and-fro exchanges by misrepresenting my research and
>> attempting to undermine it. And I'm jolly well not falling for it.
>
>And, yet... you fell for it, like a moth to a flame.
>
>Ignoring him means: "do not post a reply (any reply) to *anything* he
>says".
>
>But you won't be able to stop either, because you suffer from the same
>mental damage that Darius pointed out that Bill also suffers from.
>Both of you feel you must have "the last word".
>

No, Bill is the one who must always have the last word every time. I
know that so just let him have it.

On Wed, 06 Mar 2024 10:19:09 -0800, john larkin <jl@650pot.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 06 Mar 2024 18:03:37 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 13:18:46 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On 6/03/2024 10:10 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 19:36:13 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
>>>> <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 3/5/24 13:21, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 20:56:01 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm sure you know about it as a ritual you have learned to perform. You
>>>>>>> didn't actually comprehend what you were doing, [...]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry, Bill. I'm not biting today. You'll have to get a bit more
>>>>>> inventive if you want to suck me into another of your pointless
>>>>>> pissing contests.
>>>>>
>>>>> Would you please do us all the courtesy of ignoring him?
>>>>
>>>> I'll try. I'll really try.
>>>
>>>And he will fail.
>>
>>No Bill, I shall not. You think you can drag me back into your endless
>>and pointless to-and-fro exchanges by misrepresenting my research and
>>attempting to undermine it. And I'm jolly well not falling for it.
>
>OK, *never* respond to him again. Never.

Yes sir, no problem. You'll see.

On Wed, 06 Mar 2024 22:05:20 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
wrote:

>On Wed, 06 Mar 2024 10:18:00 -0800, john larkin <jl@650pot.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 06 Mar 2024 18:00:28 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 13:11:00 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 6/03/2024 6:24 am, Roger Hayter wrote:
>>>>> On 5 Mar 2024 at 13:45:55 GMT, "Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/03/2024 11:21 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 20:56:01 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 5/03/2024 8:30 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 12:52:04 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/03/2024 2:50 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 15:29:02 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/03/2024 5:03 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This might have been the information you needed, if you knew enough to
>>>>>>>>>> process it. The placement of your response suggests that you don't.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Your remarks were so trite they didn't bear a response. Everyone here
>>>>>>>>> knows electrolytic caps need to be re-formed if they've been unused
>>>>>>>>> for any significant length of time.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But you didn't mention it in your original post, and clearly don't
>>>>>>>> appreciate what it is actually doing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ah, that must be it. Over 60 years of hobby electronics and I never
>>>>>>> knew that. Thanks for spoon-feeding me that vital tidbit, Bill. How
>>>>>>> would we ever manage without you?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You don't manage all that well. The vital tit-bit of information came
>>>>>> from electro-chemistry, which isn't covered in detail in hobby
>>>>>> electronics, but was part of my undergraduate chemistry course - John
>>>>>> Larkin's did at least first year chemistry too, but probably wasn't
>>>>>> paying attention to that bit of the course.
>>>>>
>>>>> You mean there's a *syllabus* for hobby electronics?
>>>>
>>>>In the sense that you do have to learn stuff to be able be good enough
>>>>at it for it to be worth pursuing as a hobby. Cursitor Doom hasn't
>>>>learned all that much, and he resents having his short-comings pointed out.
>>>
>>>I'm deeply honoured that you're making the exact same criticism of me
>>>as you make of John Larkin, Bill. That's a hell of a compliment for me
>>>as a mere hobbyist. Thanks!
>>
>>Ignore him! You are rasslin with a pig and he enjoys it.
>>
>>But an electronic hobbyist is not "mere". It's a cool thing to do.
>>
>>I note that he's editing his absurd mis-spelling of "probably", even
>>in my posts and his replies.
>
>Yes, I spotted that. I had a good laugh when I saw what you did in the
>prevous post. :-D

Well, he rags me for my occasional mis-spellings. I wish he'd learn
the difference between its and it's.

I wish even more that he would be civil, or go away. Giant stupid
flame wars drive good people away.

On Wed, 06 Mar 2024 15:06:17 -0800, john larkin <jl@650pot.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 06 Mar 2024 22:05:20 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 06 Mar 2024 10:18:00 -0800, john larkin <jl@650pot.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 06 Mar 2024 18:00:28 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 13:11:00 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On 6/03/2024 6:24 am, Roger Hayter wrote:
>>>>>> On 5 Mar 2024 at 13:45:55 GMT, "Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 5/03/2024 11:21 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 20:56:01 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 5/03/2024 8:30 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 12:52:04 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/03/2024 2:50 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 15:29:02 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/03/2024 5:03 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This might have been the information you needed, if you knew enough to
>>>>>>>>>>> process it. The placement of your response suggests that you don't.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Your remarks were so trite they didn't bear a response. Everyone here
>>>>>>>>>> knows electrolytic caps need to be re-formed if they've been unused
>>>>>>>>>> for any significant length of time.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But you didn't mention it in your original post, and clearly don't
>>>>>>>>> appreciate what it is actually doing.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ah, that must be it. Over 60 years of hobby electronics and I never
>>>>>>>> knew that. Thanks for spoon-feeding me that vital tidbit, Bill. How
>>>>>>>> would we ever manage without you?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You don't manage all that well. The vital tit-bit of information came
>>>>>>> from electro-chemistry, which isn't covered in detail in hobby
>>>>>>> electronics, but was part of my undergraduate chemistry course - John
>>>>>>> Larkin's did at least first year chemistry too, but probably wasn't
>>>>>>> paying attention to that bit of the course.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You mean there's a *syllabus* for hobby electronics?
>>>>>
>>>>>In the sense that you do have to learn stuff to be able be good enough
>>>>>at it for it to be worth pursuing as a hobby. Cursitor Doom hasn't
>>>>>learned all that much, and he resents having his short-comings pointed out.
>>>>
>>>>I'm deeply honoured that you're making the exact same criticism of me
>>>>as you make of John Larkin, Bill. That's a hell of a compliment for me
>>>>as a mere hobbyist. Thanks!
>>>
>>>Ignore him! You are rasslin with a pig and he enjoys it.
>>>
>>>But an electronic hobbyist is not "mere". It's a cool thing to do.
>>>
>>>I note that he's editing his absurd mis-spelling of "probably", even
>>>in my posts and his replies.
>>
>>Yes, I spotted that. I had a good laugh when I saw what you did in the
>>prevous post. :-D
>
>Well, he rags me for my occasional mis-spellings. I wish he'd learn
>the difference between its and it's.
>
>I wish even more that he would be civil, or go away. Giant stupid
>flame wars drive good people away.
>

It's a great shame, because he *can* be very informative on those few
occasions when he chooses to be.