REMOVING ENAMEL COATING

[W3CQH]

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

[Dave Platt]

Post by W3CQH
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!

[Scott]

Post by Dave Platt

Post by W3CQH
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

[W3CQH]

Post by Scott

Post by Dave Platt

Post by W3CQH
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

[Scott]

Post by W3CQH

Post by Scott

Post by Dave Platt

Post by W3CQH
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

[Ian White GM3SEK]

Post by Scott

Post by W3CQH

Post by Scott

Post by Dave Platt
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.

[Tim Shoppa]

Post by Scott

Post by W3CQH
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

[Alan Peake]

Post by Tim Shoppa
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

[Tim Shoppa]

Post by Alan Peake

Post by Tim Shoppa
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.

[Tim Wescott]

Post by Scott

Post by Dave Platt

Post by W3CQH
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!

[Michael Coslo]

Post by Scott
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 -

[Scott]

Post by Michael Coslo

Post by Scott
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

[AF6AY]

Post by Dave Platt

Post by W3CQH
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.

General Cement's "Strip-X" hasn't been sold by them for at least
a dozen years. I sent them a letter some time ago, got a nice
reply to that effect from a female-named staffer "who had not
worked for them before that." :-) Their home office is also my
home town. :-)

"Strip-X" worked like a charm. For decades as an over-the-
counter product. Nothing over-the-counter now works as well as
it did from 1948 onwards to whenever they stopped repackaging it.
Note: GC did a lot of repackaging of bulk material and tools as
well as some manufacturing. GC went through a series of
corporate restructures, buys, and buy-outs, just aren't the same
company as when I left Rockford, IL, in 1956.

As a fellow professional, I've tried to find out what other
manufacturers use. Most use a mechanical "stripper" that
abrades coatings...but quite expensive, too much for the average
hobbyist. At least one "makes their own" but is very close-
mouthed on what their "own formula" is...:-)

Post by Dave Platt
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.

The only problems I've ever had with "Strip-X" was with some
surplus Teflon-coated (!) magnet wire obtained decades ago. But,
my last bottle of "Strip-X" dried solid about 8 years ago.

Post by Dave Platt
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).

I've tried to find one out of three different brands tested,
from Lowes, Home Depot, OSH (Orchard Supply Hardware), and
Do-It Centers. They remove oil-based paints with difficulty
and aren't even close to "Strip-X" for magnet wire, any
coating. Roughly a $60 experiment in trying for a substitute
all of which were unsuccessful. Bummer.

Post by Dave Platt
These chemicals all come with fire- and health-hazard warnings... if
you use 'em, do so with proper care and precautions!

The do-gooders done did too much with all those warnings and
attempts to protect us all from everything. :-( I'd only
been using Strip-X since 1947 and known lots and lots of folks
who stripped magnet wire using Strip-X. No "fires" caused by
the stuff and most of those I knew did not suffer from any
"health-hazards" inhaling (very briefly) the stinky odor from
Strip-X. It's sort of like anything with an odor should have
"Caution: Breathing will eventually result in death!" warnings.

At one time (just about 8 years ago), pure acetone was VERY
hard to get in pint/quart containers. It is an excellent
solvent for lacquers, brush-cleaning, etc. (not good for wire
stripping though). As of about 3 years ago it and a few other
aromatic hydrocarbons started appearing in do-it-yourself
stores. Maybe there's some relaxation in all those dire
predictions, warnings, etc., etc., etc.

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...

73, Len AF6AY

[Bert Hyman]

Post by AF6AY
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]

[gwatts]

Post by AF6AY
...
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

[N***@aol.com]

Post by gwatts

Post by AF6AY
...
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.

Post by gwatts
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.

Post by gwatts
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

[Highland Ham]

Post by N***@aol.com
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.

Post by gwatts
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

[Michael Coslo]

Post by N***@aol.com

Post by gwatts

Post by AF6AY
...
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.

Post by N***@aol.com
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.

Post by gwatts
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.

Post by gwatts
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 -

[N***@aol.com]

Post by Michael Coslo

Post by N***@aol.com

Post by AF6AY
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.

Post by Michael Coslo
Some items such as Benzene are pretty dangerous
and have an established
track record of making people sick. Those should go
whenever possible.

Agreed.

Post by Michael Coslo
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.

Post by Michael Coslo
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".

Post by Michael Coslo

Post by N***@aol.com
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.

Post by Michael Coslo
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

[Michael Coslo]

Post by N***@aol.com

Post by Michael Coslo

Post by N***@aol.com

Post by AF6AY
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.

Post by Michael Coslo
Some items such as Benzene are pretty dangerous
and have an established
track record of making people sick. Those should go
whenever possible.

Agreed.

Post by Michael Coslo
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.

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^)

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?

Post by N***@aol.com
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.

Post by N***@aol.com
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.

Post by N***@aol.com
Did every user of the stuff do so in a "well-ventilated area"? I think
not.

One can only give guidelines, not enforce them.

Post by N***@aol.com
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. 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.

On the other hand, I've silvered my telescope mirrors in my garage. This
involves a litany of nasty stuff, from Silver nitrate to 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.


- 73 de Mike N3LI -

[NoMoreSpam]

Post by Michael Coslo
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?

Post by N***@aol.com
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.

Post by N***@aol.com
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!

[gwatts]

Post by NoMoreSpam

Post by Michael Coslo
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?

Post by N***@aol.com
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.

Post by N***@aol.com
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!'

[N***@aol.com]

Post by Michael Coslo

Post by N***@aol.com

Post by Michael Coslo

Post by N***@aol.com

Post by AF6AY
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.

Post by Michael Coslo
Some items such as Benzene are pretty dangerous
and have an established
track record of making people sick. Those should go
whenever possible.

Agreed.

Post by Michael Coslo
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.

Post by Michael Coslo
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.

Post by Michael Coslo
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

Post by Michael Coslo

Post by N***@aol.com
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.

Post by Michael Coslo

Post by N***@aol.com
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.

Post by Michael Coslo

Post by N***@aol.com
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!

Post by Michael Coslo

Post by N***@aol.com
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.

Post by Michael Coslo
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.

Post by Michael Coslo
On the other hand, I've silvered my telescope mirrors in my garage. This
involves a litany of nasty stuff, from Silver nitrate to  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

[Highland Ham]

Post by N***@aol.com
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

[xpyttl]

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.

..

[Michael Coslo]

Post by Highland Ham

Post by N***@aol.com
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 -

[N***@aol.com]

Post by Highland Ham

Post by N***@aol.com
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.

Post by Highland Ham
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?

Post by Highland Ham
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?

Post by Highland Ham
So it does make sense to go for lead free solder.

I think there are better ways to keep lead out of the trash.

Post by Highland Ham
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

[Highland Ham]

Post by N***@aol.com
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?

=======================================
In the Netherlands and other EU countries all electrical goods are
subjected to a 'prepaid removal fee' This variable fee is payable on
purchase ,be it an electric toothbrush ,a microwave oven or a TV set
,computer ,printer etc. It means that upon disposal the unit can be
taken to any retailer who is obliged to dispose of the equipment in a
responsible way(recycle yard)

Also spent alkaline,Nicad,NiMH ,any type of battery can be put in a
container at any retailer including supermarkets who are selling these
batteries , even if you do not intend to buy batteries at that time.

In the UK they are lagging behind with these measures.

Frank GM0CSZ / KN6WH

[N***@aol.com]

Post by Highland Ham

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?

=======================================
In the Netherlands and other EU countries all electrical goods are
subjected to a 'prepaid removal fee' �This variable fee is
payable on
purchase ,be it an electric toothbrush ,a microwave oven
or a TV set
,computer ,printer etc. It means that upon disposal the unit
can be
taken to any retailer who is obliged to dispose of the
equipment in a
responsible way(recycle yard)
Also spent alkaline,Nicad,NiMH ,any type of battery
can be put in a
container at any retailer including supermarkets who
are selling these
batteries , even if you do not intend to buy batteries at that time.

That's close to what I'm talking about. Seems to me that's a better
solution than demanding no lead-containing solder.

Post by Highland Ham
In the UK they are lagging behind with these measures.

Here in the USA, some retailers (Home Depot, Staples, Pep Boys)
have done similar things for batteries, motor oil, printer cartridges,
compact flourescent lamps, cell phones and some other items.
In some cases
it's a government regulation, in others it's a way to get you into
the store, and in others it's just a desire to do the right thing
rather
than being forced to do it.

The idea of building in the disposal cost up-front is a good one,
IMHO, because it reveals the true cost of the item, not just the
immediate cost.

73 de Jim, N2EY

[abcd815]

旅游--人民网让欧洲旅游能够实实在在的消费,能够诚信的消费,同时能够满意的消费,真正树立一个诚信云南、&#35802
旅游频道_新华网英文旅游书都江堰义卖|报恩寺恢复维修需5500&#19975
北京29处应急避难场所公&#24067
公园景观平时供人游赏...太原旅游两项新&#35268
市民举报旅游企业违规可获奖&#21169
克什克腾旗国家生态旅游服务标准化示范区揭牌...千龙网--旅游8个最适合男人美国旅&#28216
云南澡堂会"艳浴"&#35760
欧洲九大著名购物村...爱嘉途联合千龙旅游推出境游低价新概&#24565
• 甘肃自然保护&#21306
102只大熊猫生死不&#26126
&#8226
京五星级宾馆奥运期间标间均价3263元...趣途旅游网-旅游超市英国两户人闹纠纷怒造"马尔代夫旅游
反成旅游热点 &#8226
享受最顶级的奢&#21326
曼谷高尔夫之旅(组图)...北京新华国际旅游有限公&#21496
¥1700
美国东西海岸十四日探访名校国&#38469
享游假期-北京青年旅行社官园&#33829
¥30000 "..


--
abcd815

[Erich]

One of the biggest problems I have with the lead free solder is that
over time it tends to grow tin whiskers. Then it shorts out to adjacent
pads. Current reliability requirements are to encapsulate all the
solder joints with epoxy. This is painful and really causes problems
with rework.

No-lead; a feel-good solution to a non-problem.

Erich N6FD

[Mike Silva]

Post by Erich
One of the biggest problems I have with the lead free solder is that
over time it tends to grow tin whiskers.  Then it shorts out to adjacent
pads.  Current reliability requirements are to encapsulate all the
solder joints with epoxy.  This is painful and really causes problems
with rework.
No-lead; a feel-good solution to a non-problem.
Erich N6FD

http://nepp.nasa.gov/WHISKER/ (check out the photo gallery)

Wonder if the EU is going to pick up the eventual world-wide tab?

[AF6AY]

Post by Erich
One of the biggest problems I have with the lead free solder is that
over time it tends to grow tin whiskers. �Then it shorts out to adjacent
pads. �Current reliability requirements are to encapsulate all the
solder joints with epoxy. �This is painful and really causes problems
with rework.
No-lead; a feel-good solution to a non-problem.
Erich N6FD

http://nepp.nasa.gov/WHISKER/(check out the photo gallery)
Wonder if the EU is going to pick up the eventual world-wide tab?

EU doesn't have to. RoHS (Reduction of Hazardous Substances) is an
in-country (European) specification that covers a LOT of different
substances. In one way RoHS is no different than the FCC
specification
that forbids MARKETING of receivers than can listen to cellular
telephone
frequencies...or the way older specification that stated TV sets sold
in the
USA must be capable of tuning in UHF TV channels...or the FCC
specification about linear RF amplifiers that can cover CB that aren't
allowed to be sold IN the USA.

RoHS is NOT an international specification. Manufacturers who sell
ONLY in the USA and don't care to enter the European (or RoHS-member)
markets aren't obliged in any way to obey RoHS standards. USA DoD
contracts on electronics can use lead-bearing solders, no problem.

NASA used CONFORMAL COATINGS or encapsulation on spacecraft
electronics in the beginning of the 1960s. NOT for any sort of 'tin-
whisker'
problems but for the fact that microgravity environments all all kinds
of small
or large junk to float around freely. It MIGHT be that some teeny
conductive
junk could short out traces on a PCB in space. Hardly likely in an
earth
environment with gravity all the time. Those same conformal coatings
were
later found to inhibit the growth of CERTAIN metal whiskers (tin is
not the only
one). Except for one potting compound allowed back in the 1960s, such
coatings and pottings were not epoxoids. The others were closer to
offshoots
of silicone elastomers and could be reworked.

There are all sorts of coating compounds available now. Emerson &
Cuming
built their long-running business of providing all kinds of polymer
compounds for the electronics industry. Those aren't cheap. No such
products are.

"Tin whisker" problems take a LONG time to show up. Usually it takes
a half year for the first such whiskers' start to become visible under
100x magnification. Repeated heating-cooling tends to hasten such
growth (of a
sort of crystaline form of tin) but such studies aren't quite complete
yet. But,
once started, the growth can accelerate. Even that is not speedy.

Thanks to MARKETING folks, there has been a lot of hysteria about this
"tin-
whisker" thing generated and picked up by all who have no experience
in such
things. A conformal coating will inhibt whisker growth. Even an
ordinary varnish used on wood surfaces. I'd avoid the green 'solder-
mask' stuff found
on PCB assemblies which are used to prevent excess solder during wave-
and reflow-soldering; it is tough stuff and much harder to remove if
put on
soldered pads/lands via additional coatings. I'd avoid lacquers
because they
leave a lot of stubborn ash behind if one MUST 'rework'
something...despite
their easy application and quick drying time and nice appearance after
application.

73, Len AF6AY

[N***@aol.com]

Post by Erich
One of the biggest problems I have with the lead free solder is that
over time it tends to grow tin whiskers. �Then it shorts out to adjacent
pads. �Current reliability requirements are to encapsulate all the
solder joints with epoxy. �This is painful and really causes problems
with rework.

Perhaps the idea is to eliminate rework and repair. Remember the
slogan "Ending is better than mending"?

Post by Erich
No-lead; a feel-good solution to a non-problem.

I disagree!

I think it's the wrong solution to real problem.

73 de Jim, N2EY

[Michael Coslo]

Post by N***@aol.com

Post by Michael Coslo

Post by N***@aol.com

Post by Michael Coslo

Post by N***@aol.com

Post by AF6AY
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.

Post by Michael Coslo
Some items such as Benzene are pretty dangerous
and have an established
track record of making people sick. Those should go
whenever possible.

Agreed.

Post by Michael Coslo
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.

Post by Michael Coslo
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.

The MSDS

Post by N***@aol.com

Post by Michael Coslo
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

Post by Michael Coslo

Post by N***@aol.com
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.

Post by Michael Coslo

Post by N***@aol.com
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.

Water! That's it... I know when I've eaten salt cod, I get awfully
thirsty. FOr the technical among us, that is DiHydrogen Monoxide.

Post by N***@aol.com
The "known to California" jargon means such controlled studies have
been done.

Post by Michael Coslo

Post by N***@aol.com
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!

Post by Michael Coslo

Post by N***@aol.com
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.

Post by Michael Coslo
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.

Post by Michael Coslo
On the other hand, I've silvered my telescope mirrors in my garage. This
involves a litany of nasty stuff, from Silver nitrate to 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.

I've used it once. That's just about enough, IMO.

Post by N***@aol.com
The Big Issue IMHO is whether a dangerous process can be made safer.
Is there a safer way to silver a telescope mirror?

Not specifically using silver. More common these days is sending the
mirror away to have an aluminum or other coating flashed on it in a
vacuum chamber. Pretty safe, but not many people are going to do that at
home. I did it mainly for the experience, and to do an extended field
check of the quality of the mirror. Checking out a mirror is not unlike
checking out an antenna. Usually we do a star test on an uncoated
mirror. We install everything in the tube, and look at stars to
determine if the work we did was acceptable. But just like propagation
affects how an antenna appears to work or not work, the sky conditions
can affect how images look in the eyepiece. So multiple sessions are
best, but no one wants to wait a long time, so most people check it out
once, put in a fudge factor for how they think the seeing will be, then
ship it out for aluminizing, and hope they guessed right. Sometimes they
don't guess right.

I gave my mirror almost a year worth of test. I knew it was a veery good
mirror after a month, but then I just continued the experiment to see
how long the silver would last, since they are very fragile surfaces.

Post by N***@aol.com
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?

Just need to interject that solder pots aren't completely benign.

Post by N***@aol.com
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.

Agreed. There are ways to remove most all the lead from circuit boards
during a recycling process. Electronics can be designed and built with
an eye towards recycling; easy disassembly, etc.

On the lead replacements, I have an old solder information book. Lots of
the new replacement metals are shown in it with examples of why those
metals aren't used. They were considered bad contaminants.

Post by N***@aol.com
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?

Didn't think about it before, but now that you mention it, it is kinda
dumb.


- 73 de Mike N3LI -

[Jim Adney]

Post by N***@aol.com
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?

I think you'll find that auto batteries are already VERY commonly
recycled, for exactly this reason.

-
-----------------------------------------------
Jim Adney ***@vwtype3.org
Madison, WI 53711 USA
-----------------------------------------------

[N***@aol.com]

Post by Jim Adney

Post by N***@aol.com
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?

I think you'll find that auto batteries are already VERY commonly
recycled, for exactly this reason.

Here in Pennsylvania, there's a "core charge" ($7? might have gone up)
if you try to buy a new car battery without an old one to trade in.
Besides being an incentive to recycle, it gives the auto-parts folks a
chance to put the old battery alongside the new one and make sure it's
the right size.

But the main point is this: Not all car batteries are recycled; some
do get into the waste stream. The same is true of other lead-acid and
ni-cad cells (cadmium is a heavy metal, too). Yet those things are not
outlawed. Instead, recycling and education programs are set up to keep
the lead, cadmium and acid out of the environment.

IMHO, such recycling for discarded electronics is a better solution
than banning lead-tin solder.

73 de Jim, N2EY

[AF6AY]

Post by N***@aol.com

Post by Michael Coslo

Post by N***@aol.com

Post by Michael Coslo
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.

Sigh...so written communication from the manufacturer is 'no good?!?'

Oh, yes, it must be so. "Southgate Radio" (that big, big maker of
radios) hasn't issued a Proclamation yet to 'confirm' the fact.

Post by N***@aol.com
It's quite possible - in fact, probable - that the reason Strip-X was
discontinued was lack of sales.

No one seems to have checked out General Cement and its line of
products. They've been in business for over 75 years, have regular
product displays and stocks at NON-ham electronics stores. Many of
those products have LOW sales rates. Their original product, an
acetate-based cement (originally intended to repair paper speaker
cones) is still in the current catalog (but under a different
product number than the original). Who 'repairs speaker cones'
these days? One can expect them to carry it for nothing other
than sentimental or nostalgic reasons given that there are MANY
kinds of cements available in NON-electronic stores that could do
the job as easy and probably better. It is, as acetate-based, no
different than hobby cements such as 'Testors Cement' also made
in the same city by by Testor Chemical Company (also still in
business for about the same time). It is incredibly cheap to
produce, costing no more than the original LEAD-based tube both
used to come in. Yes, youngsters, Testors Cement and GC
chemicals and every toothpaste made by anyone once came in LEAD
tubes! [horrors! contamination!]

One thing that you youngsters ASSUME is that insulation on magnet
wire has ALWAYS been the same to this day. Not true, but it is
impossible to tell some of the middle-aged knowitalls so (they
passed a code test in their teen years and have been extra class
a long time...harumpphhh).

At the introduction of 'wire-wrap' techniques (both in telco
infrastructure and in prototype digital PCB card construction),
roughly around the beginning 1960s, magnet wire manufacturers
were beginning to use LOWER-TEMPERATURE-MELTING insulation of
various kinds. "Solder-Eze" is one brand name that was very
successful...there are dozens of others. Look in any Kings,
Times or Belden full catalog.

PVC (PolyVinylChloride) insulation has been used on wire at the
end of WWII. PVC has a low melting point (relatively speaking).
MIL-W- specs of nylon-jacketed PVC wire was standard US military
wire in aircraft of the late 1940s. The nylon jacket adds
resistance to abrasion and has a higher melting point. Relatively
easy to mechanically strip nylon-jacketed PVC and it does not
'collapse' from melting if soldered too long using manual wiring.
With petroleum more abundant after WWII, other polymers were
developed and used, notably Teflon (TetraFlouroethylene) which
was relatively indestructable compared to predecessor insulations.

Hughes Aircraft Company El Segundo Division (made radars and
fire control systems for military aircraft) had surplus nylon-
jacketed PVC wire at their employee's store. I used some of
that to nearly-completely rewire the electrical system of my
restored 1953 Austin-Healey sports car in 1958. Much better wire
than the cotton-cloth covered gutta percha insulation of the
original English wiring.

Post by N***@aol.com
After all, the *professionals* use
solder pots, not chemicals. Amateurs who are in the know use solder
pots, or a solder blob.

REAL "amateurs who are in the know" got their materials
experience IN the electronics INDUSTRY. Especially those who
who were involved in materials testing and design of both
electronic and physical construction.

By the way, this "Southgate Radio" you keep mentioning doesn't
seem to exist as anything but the name of a store up in Canada.
There IS a Southgate Amateur Radio Club in the Southgate section
of London, England...but their website doesn't seem to have
much on magnet wire stripping techniques. Lots of new solid-state
radio information there for radio amateurs, though.

Post by N***@aol.com
I suspect that the market for Strip-X was so small it wasn't worth
producing any more.

SPECULATION! SPECULATION! When did the 'radio manufacturer' from
'Southgate Radio' ever visit GC or get a PROFESSIONAL chemical lab
to analyze what was in there? BTW, how many radios does 'Southgate
Radio' make each year?

Post by N***@aol.com

Post by Michael Coslo
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.

Go to any food market in the USA to see lots of BIG labels of
contents, percentages, and FDA information on EVERY packaged
food product.

Post by N***@aol.com

Post by Michael Coslo
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

Tsk, tsk, easterners back in PA making fun of the most populous
state in the USA...and once the capital of the aerospace industry
in the USA. It is also the state with the MOST licensed radio
amateurs in the USA.

Post by N***@aol.com

Post by Michael Coslo

Post by N***@aol.com
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.

If you DO say that, then you are NOT an "amateur in the know."

LOWER TEMPERATURE magnet wire insulation used in the electronics
industry enabled newer techniques of stripping insulation and
the use of 'melting by solder pot' VERY SMALL VOLUME production
technique...or connections by mechanical means that both broke
through insulation and made electrical connection. The "push-
down" rapid connection system for telcos is an example. Much,
much quicker to do, less labor intensive. Look at many of the
multiple-wire cable connectors that use a mechanical crimping
system to join every wire at once and also make an electrical
connection.

The predominant method of stripping magnet wire in the electronics
industry is the abrasive brush method which ALSO works for small
gauge insulated conventional wire. They don't fool around with
labor-intensive, one-of-a-kind techniques of construction used
by hobbyists.

Manufacturers of electric motors might use propane gas torches
to BURN off stator windings' magnet wire, heating it enough to
bare the copper and to solder to it in one operation. Same
thing for some (but not all) rotor windings. Electrical motor
makers use magent wire by the MILE and make them at relatively
low cost...and for very long life in high-torque AC powered
applications.

Post by N***@aol.com
The "known to California" jargon means such controlled studies have
been done.

Spoken by Pennsylvanians without ever once doing any 'controlled
studies' of any subject involving California. Sigh...

Post by N***@aol.com

Post by Michael Coslo
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.

AFTER a whole bunch of litigious actions by those who were
trying to make personal profit via civil suits.

As an AMATEUR about automobiles, I put seat belts in the 2-door
Plymouth I came out west back in 1956. Bought a kit in 1957, put
them in the front seats myself. Did that with my restored Austin-
Healey, too. Made SENSE to do so...even though never involved in
any collision or 'roll-over.' The 1961 Chevy Impala convertible
that followed had seat belts already installed.

Aren't we talking WAY OFF the subject of WIRE STRIPPING here and
about times that few of you actually LIVED and EXPERIENCED?

Post by N***@aol.com

Post by Michael Coslo
On the other hand, I've silvered my telescope mirrors in my garage. This
involves a litany of nasty stuff, from Silver nitrate to 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?

Yes, there is, and it results in a mirror with fewer optical
aberrations on its surface. It is deposition of metal (usually
aluminum) in a vacuum. My lead-man at EOS, Doug McFarland, was
an amateur telescope maker (and licensed radio amateur) and got
his mirrors 'silvered' that way for his 6 and 10 inch refractors.

Post by N***@aol.com
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?

Try stripping some #42 enameled magnet wire made around 1950
by 'solder pot' or abrasive techniques and the end product
will not be very good. That old enamel covering will harden
with time. CHEMICAL means to loosen the enamel WITHOUT any
copper damage is the COMMON SENSE approach to getting an
electrical connection. It is fast, inexpensive, and, IF USED
WITH APPROPRIATE CAUTION, safe enough in an enivornment that is
FULL of MANY DANGERS.

Do you wear thermal-insulating mittens or gloves when handling
a soldering iron? YOU SHOULD...IT IS 'GOOD FOR YOU.' Soldering
irons operate at tip temperatures high enough to inflict very
serior BURNS on the skin.

Do you inhale fumes from rosin flux while soldering? DON'T DO IT,
WEAR SELF-CONTAINED BREATHING APPARATUS! 'IT'S GOOD FOR YOU!'
Who knows what other FUMES are given off when soldering? Has
anyone done 'controlled tests of human dangers' from that?
Better hurry up to catch up with the DO-GOODERS!

Do you wear PROTECTIVE GLASSES when drilling wood or metal?
BETTER DO THAT! 'IT IS GOOD FOR YOU!' Who knows when you
get clumsy and don't hold the work tight and pieces fly off,
possibly impacting your precious EYES! Ya gots to have
PROTECTIVE EYEGLASSES!

Do you wear self-contained breathing appartus when spraying
paint? BETTER DO IT, 'IT IS GOOD FOR YOU!' All that toluene
and acetone and other DANGEROUS hydrocarbon compounds are set
free and will CONTAMINATE YOU AND THE ENTIRE PLANET!

Do you wear protective gloves when working with sheet metal
or any substance that can make a sharp edge that would PIERCE
YOUR SKIN? BETTER DO IT, IT IS GOOD FOR YOU! We can't have
you in GREAT DANGER from open wound infections!

Oh, oh, oh, THE WORLD IS FULL OF *DANGERS*! Protect yourself
from EVERYTHING that might, possibly, maybe damage your
precious body...or neighborhood...or city...or the planet.
DON'T DO ANYTHING. Just sit at your computer (with non-CRT
flat-screen display so you won't be in danger of X-RAYS from
those old CRT displays) and make Do-Gooder noises...especially
to those of us who spent a lifetime IN the electronics
industry.

Keep your 'Southgate Radio' company SAFE.

AF6AY

[Michael Coslo]

Post by AF6AY

Post by Dave Platt

Post by W3CQH
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.

General Cement's "Strip-X" hasn't been sold by them for at least
a dozen years. I sent them a letter some time ago, got a nice
reply to that effect from a female-named staffer "who had not
worked for them before that." :-) Their home office is also my
home town. :-)
"Strip-X" worked like a charm. For decades as an over-the-
counter product. Nothing over-the-counter now works as well as
it did from 1948 onwards to whenever they stopped repackaging it.
Note: GC did a lot of repackaging of bulk material and tools as
well as some manufacturing. GC went through a series of
corporate restructures, buys, and buy-outs, just aren't the same
company as when I left Rockford, IL, in 1956.
As a fellow professional, I've tried to find out what other
manufacturers use. Most use a mechanical "stripper" that
abrades coatings...but quite expensive, too much for the average
hobbyist. At least one "makes their own" but is very close-
mouthed on what their "own formula" is...:-)

Post by Dave Platt
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.

The only problems I've ever had with "Strip-X" was with some
surplus Teflon-coated (!) magnet wire obtained decades ago. But,
my last bottle of "Strip-X" dried solid about 8 years ago.

Post by Dave Platt
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).

I've tried to find one out of three different brands tested,
from Lowes, Home Depot, OSH (Orchard Supply Hardware), and
Do-It Centers. They remove oil-based paints with difficulty
and aren't even close to "Strip-X" for magnet wire, any
coating. Roughly a $60 experiment in trying for a substitute
all of which were unsuccessful. Bummer.

Post by Dave Platt
These chemicals all come with fire- and health-hazard warnings... if
you use 'em, do so with proper care and precautions!

The do-gooders done did too much with all those warnings and
attempts to protect us all from everything. :-( I'd only
been using Strip-X since 1947 and known lots and lots of folks
who stripped magnet wire using Strip-X. No "fires" caused by
the stuff and most of those I knew did not suffer from any
"health-hazards" inhaling (very briefly) the stinky odor from
Strip-X. It's sort of like anything with an odor should have
"Caution: Breathing will eventually result in death!" warnings.

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.

Did you by any chance try some old style enameled wire in your
experiment above?

Post by AF6AY
At one time (just about 8 years ago), pure acetone was VERY
hard to get in pint/quart containers. It is an excellent
solvent for lacquers, brush-cleaning, etc. (not good for wire
stripping though). As of about 3 years ago it and a few other
aromatic hydrocarbons started appearing in do-it-yourself
stores. Maybe there's some relaxation in all those dire
predictions, warnings, etc., etc., etc.

The acetone issue is a strange one. Acetone is one of the safer
solvents out there, heck our body even produces some acetone. Aside from
the obvious precautions for flammable materials, the biggest problem
with it is for people who wear contact lenses of the plastic variety.
Splash some in your eye, and if it gets to the edge of the contact,
capillary action will suck it under the lens, and weld the contact to
your eye. Removal effectively blinds the person. Otherwise it's pretty
safe stuff. I just don't wear contacts - even under safety goggles -
when I use it.

Post by AF6AY
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.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

[AF6AY]

Post by Michael Coslo
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.

Post by Michael Coslo
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.

Post by Michael Coslo
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! :-)

Post by Michael Coslo

Post by AF6AY
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

[Highland Ham]

Post by Dave Platt
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

[Mike Silva]

Post by W3CQH
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

[Jim Adney]

On Wed, 28 May 2008 14:18:47 -0700 (PDT) Mike Silva

Post by Mike Silva

Post by W3CQH
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 ***@vwtype3.org
Madison, WI 53711 USA
-----------------------------------------------

[Dave Heil]

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

[N***@aol.com]

Post by Dave Heil
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*....

Post by Dave Heil
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

[Dave Heil]

Post by N***@aol.com

Post by Dave Heil
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?

Post by N***@aol.com

Post by Dave Heil
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.

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.

Post by N***@aol.com
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?

Post by N***@aol.com
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.

Dave K8MN

[Michael Coslo]

Post by Dave Heil

Post by N***@aol.com

Post by Dave Heil
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.

Post by Dave Heil
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.

Post by N***@aol.com
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 -

[N***@aol.com]

Post by N***@aol.com
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?

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.

Post by N***@aol.com

Post by Dave Heil
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.  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.

ooops! Hadn't heard that one before!

Post by N***@aol.com
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

 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.

 Doesn't it sound like
something which could go terribly, terribly wrong?

Not with "appropriate safety precautions".

Post by N***@aol.com
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

[Michael Coslo]

Post by Dave Heil
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 -

[j***@gmail.com]

Post by Mike Silva

Post by W3CQH
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