|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
71.210.40.218
In Reply to: Sorry, no bangs on reversing 'lytic cap to DC. (long) posted by cheap-Jack on February 26, 2007 at 12:44:05:
Believe me, under the right conditions they bang.
Follow Ups:
.
The bang comes from the release of electrolytic fluid caused by resistive heating. The fluid releases through a designed vent or the side of the capacitor. This is not usually an instantaneous condition and may take several minutes to several hours to build up enough heat and pressure to blow up the cap. If you have a temperature gauge you can measure the heat build-up. By observing the voltage drop caused by the reversed cap you can calculate the amount of current draw caused by the unhappy cap. Your cap will explode, just give it some time.I have observed this personally when, early in my building career, reversing an electrolytic cap rated at 35 volts DC in a 20 volt DC circuit. The ejection of boiling fluid went away from me, thankfully, but the loud bang made my wife aware of my incompetence.
_______________________________
Long Live Dr.Gizmo
That was my experience, more or less. It was several years ago,
and I can't remember if it was an over voltage or a polarity
reversal but, I was sitting at my work bench and it went off,
right in my face. Loud as a firecracker and scared the crap out
of me.I am very careful about how I use electrolytics after that.
Hi.That means I have to redo my stimulation test again for a longer time until the cap bangs up. Of course I will put the breadboard under cover.
My argument is: would a practical voltage stage come close to this stimuated condition?
Is there any way to improve the sound of a polarized 'lytic caps without going for costly & bulky caps which would surely be a pain on a SS PCB?
c-J
others shouldn't play with electricity. Darwin's law works when they don't have sense enough to know themselves....
the Theory of Natural Selection.
The idiots kill themselves and thus
eliminating themselves from the gene pool.Also Darwin "law" is still just theory
Widely accepted theory but only theoryShakespeare Quote :
"If music be the food of love, play on;
Give me excess of it, that, surfeiting,
The appetite may sicken, and so die."
"Also Darwin "law" is still just theory
Widely accepted theory but only theory"Mutations are observed regularly (as is reproduction.) No need to depend on fossil records, etc. That part is not just theory. The idea that some mutations result in an organism that is more likely to produce offspring that mature to produce offspring of their own is hardly debatable. It's fairly simple logic; it *must* be the case.
What continues to be debated is whether the universe is a gazzilion years old or was fairly recently created more or less as it is today. No matter which group you belong to, Darwin's 'theory' is pretty hard to dispute, provided you don't deviate from sound logic and observation.
Even if the universe is new, evolution is (must be) in progress at this moment and will continue to be forevermore. Even if you choose to believe that the mutations observed in modern times are part of a preordained master plan, they still constitute evolution.
I don't see any room to doubt Darwin. You might choose to doubt the fossil records (etc) claiming that they were planted there for whatever reason, but Darwin's 'theory' still stands uncaring.
> No matter which group you belong to, Darwin's 'theory' is pretty hard to dispute, provided you don't deviate from sound logic and observation.Well, I can't recall observing any human mutations during my lifetime that were "more likely to produce offspring." Is there any such in recorded history?
Tubes are a different matter, of course. I've noticed that those more likely to survive hard use at high power levels have multiplied in my workshop.
DaveAhh but his fundamental principle beginning IS imposible
or at least statistically imposible.
One scientist I heard said the chance of it happening
as they propose is one in the 10 to the 765th power
and anything over 100th power is considered imposible.
The principle being - "Life from Non-life".
In order for the proper chemical stew needed to begin life
to be present there must NOT be ANY oxygen there.
The presence of oxygen would cause oxidation of the elements
and render them totally useless for life's building blocks.
BUT when life begins then IMEDIATELY there needs to be present
a sufficient supply of oxygen to sustain life that just started.
So scientifically it IS imposible.
BUT "scientists" believe it happened so THEY are either illogical or fanatics or devotees of the "GREAT MODERN RELIGION OF EVOLUTION".
Which would you say is logical?"The idea that some mutations result in an organism that
is more likely to produce offspring that mature to produce
offspring of their own is hardly debatable."Show me one new species that was created during the history of man.
There was natural selection going on but NO EVOLUTION.
Those two have been interchanged so much that is laughable."evolution is (must be) in progress at this moment"
Why because your "religion" MUST be true?
"Even if you choose to believe that the mutations
observed in modern times"What mutations?
We are taller - better nutrician.
We are fatter - food easily accessable.
We are smarter - better education.
Hardly evolution.
Or when we mutate a plant so that it is a different color
or doesn't have seeds or whatever ...
The pink and white poinsetta's for instance -
they are VERY unstable and die very easily that doesn't work.
Seedless watermelons can't reproduce so they're not viable.
What mutations the frog with three heads -
did it reproduce a frog with three heads.
No then it wasn't evolution just a mutation."You might choose to doubt the fossil records"
Which can be explained by the flood.
The "simpler" creatures first so they were buried first.
And that progressed as the more intelligent sought out
more and more complex ways of staying off death."Darwin's 'theory' still stands uncaring."
Uncaring of scientists that prove it wrong regularly
but are never considered because it goes against the
"GREAT MODERN RELIGION OF EVOLUTION".There is also the fact that IF the universe was as old
as they say then the Sun's surface would have been beyond
the orbit of Mercury at that time so how could Mercury
have been there under the surface of the Sun?So many holes in this theory that are glossed over
just because it's the banner under which all "true scientists"
blindly follow as true devotees to the cause and
have brainwashed the masses as the saying goes ...
"Repeat it enough and it becomes accepted as fact".
It isn't fact, I know it and so do others.Enough for me, if you still believe in "YOUR" religion fine.
But I will believe in mine.
""You might choose to doubt the fossil records"Which can be explained by the flood.
The "simpler" creatures first so they were buried first.
And that progressed as the more intelligent sought out
more and more complex ways of staying off death."Stunning! What an extraordinarily organized event this must have been.
God is a good organizer.
nt
DanL
You said "One scientist I heard said the chance of it happening
as they propose is one in the 10 to the 765th power
and anything over 100th power is considered imposible.
The principle being - "Life from Non-life".".Consider the possibility that there are many, many, many.., parallel universes. We happen to live in the one where life has been created by chance....
:)
Consider that this number is absolute bullshit. It is.Consider that the poster (and unfortunately the respondents) does not know the difference between hypothesis and theory.
Consider that the poster is totally unaware of the difference between evolution and natural selection.
Consider that this has nothing to do with audio, other than demonstrating that, like creationism, it attracts all sorts of nuts who want to believe that the Universe is less like it is and more like they imagine. Pity that; reality is so much richer, interesting, and complex than dreary fables.
Thanks, Dan. My message was that faith in creationism does not require abandoning the basic idea of evolution. More precisely, the observation that evolution is (and has been and presumably always will be) occurring does not contradict the notion of creationism.How the world began, and what's going on right now are two different topics. The second one is of interest to me.
I agree with this- and the world is still being "created" and we all have some part in it, that's why our choices matter. And any evolution by mutation or reduction of the gene pool or whatever can certainly be a part of the creative process!
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: