Phil Allison wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:
So how many motherboards have *YOU* sprayed with WD40?
-- Ian Malcolm. London, ENGLAND. (NEWSGROUP REPLY PREFERRED) ianm[at]the[dash]malcolms[dot]freeserve[dot]co[dot]uk [at]=@, [dash]=- & [dot]=. *Warning* HTML & >32K emails --> NUL
the flame is hot enough to be hazardous to people, and the flames are invisible in good light. but alcohol fires can be extinguished with water.
-- umop apisdn --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---
On Fri, 5 Sep 2014 21:24:44 +0000 (UTC), Ian Malcolm Gave us:
I wonder if that super waterproofing stuff would work
I've had an alcohol fire on my hand. No big deal, just tamped it out. It's *nothing* like gasoline. It's used, here as a lubrication. There is no need to flood the room with it.
On Fri, 05 Sep 2014 20:02:01 -0400, snipped-for-privacy@attt.bizz Gave us:
It is also used as a delivery vehicle in alcohol soluble drug delivery in vaporizer/inhaler technology sector.
And of course, the 'new' vapor inhaler cigarette habit alternative thingys.
I want the hash oil I used to infuse back in the seventies in there.
** No-one here has claimed any such thing re WD40.
That claim was made about mineral turpentine - so try that instead.
Your "test" is quite pointless.
.... Phil
Wow! That is actually surprising to hear. I'd have thought that being water displacing (the whole raison d'etre for WD40) would make it not want to have anything to do with water.
piglet
That's a bit different to having your hand in an alcohol flame, the spilled alcohol burns hotter than spilled gasoline
-- umop apisdn --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---
On Fri, 5 Sep 2014 08:40:58 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd Gave us:
snipped improperly formatted prior post segments
A good, definitive test would be to take a bunch of #10 stainless external tooth star washers and a surface place star washers in a row, and apply more force to each one than the previous with a fastener threading into a non-condutive polymer 'nut'.
Take milliohm readings on each one. All those little tooth elements digging into the media.
Let sit for a couple months. Take readings again. The lower pressure attachments should sport a slightly higher value, the higher pressure assemblies should not. Spray with the WD-40 and retest immediately and record values. Retest again every couple minutes for the first few and less as time progresses "logarithmic" logging spacing as it were.
So... Each 'test station' consists of
A stainless #10 pan head screw
A stainless #10 flatwasher
A stainless #10 external tooth "star" washer.
A polymer nut.
A #10 round crimp lug to take readings from.
The test surface, in sheet form factor.
A polymer sheet could also be placed under some of the star washer teeth until a desired set of milliohm readings are obtained. Then the torque setting of the assembly can be used to manage the starting resistances.
One tooth, two, etc.
A tightly clamped star washer assembly in electrical is meant to create a set of small, gas-tight compression connections that end up providing a greater longevity to the overall connection point.
They can even be bought copper clad. The cheap chinese stuff is merely plated.
No, it goes exactly to the point. Even if a little alcohol catches fire, it's not likely to cause any great damage.
Nonsense.
On Sat, 06 Sep 2014 13:03:50 -0400, snipped-for-privacy@attt.bizz Gave us:
He must be thinking of larger amounts and of something like nitro-methane.
Still lower btu output in free air than gasoline IIRC.
I pass the test to you. Please let us know your results.
Very well. I will therefore terminate the test and make no further reports.
Cheers.
put a copper wire in a alcohol flame and it'll melt put one in a gasoline flame and it'll get covered in soot. the stochiometry above spilled gasoline is too rich.
-- umop apisdn --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---
** Google turned up a somewhat similar test involving various oils and lubricants - including WD40. Samples of clear sheet and expanded polystyrene were exposed for a period of about 2 years.
Mineral oils and synthetic oils proved harmless and only soy bean oil attacked the expanded sample. None attacked the clear sheet.
Despite the experimenter's initial misgivings, WD40 proved harmless too.
... Phil
Actually, when I was a kid, we would go camping with our scout troop, and one of the dad's would have a big can of naptha for the gas stoves. Every so often, someone would be trying to start a fire, and would grab a styrofoam cup to get some of the naptha. He usually made it about three feet before the bottom melted out...
it works
ium
rl next time I have to tap some Al.
visible
exactly you only need to wet the part and tool
and it not like people panic over the fire hazard of a glass of vodka
-Lasse
151 proof rum comes with a flame shield over the mouth of the bottle. Normal 80-proof vodka doesn't burn well.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
-- Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal Consultant ElectroOptical Innovations LLC Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics 160 North State Road #203 Briarcliff Manor NY 10510 hobbs at electrooptical dot net http://electrooptical.net
Of course not, 80 proof is only 40% ethanol. A liquid doesn't burn well since there isn't much oxygen in contact with it. It needs to evaporate first. It is hard to get the alcohol to the surface of a lower proof distillate so it can evaporate. 151 is 75% alcohol so there is a lot more alcohol at the surface and should burn much better, especially if it is spilled so it has a lot of surface area.
-- Rick
On Thu, 11 Sep 2014 00:54:59 -0400, rickman Gave us:
Why do you seem to be in such a volatile mood? ;-)
And what's that smell? (ewww) (hehehe)
Don't light a match!
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.