On 27/03/2026 10:24 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 27 Mar 2026 15:19:29 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 27/03/2026 1:48 am, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 27 Mar 2026 01:25:09 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>> wrote:
On 26/03/2026 8:48 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 16:51:54 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>> wrote:
On 26/03/2026 6:38 am, Phil Hobbs wrote:
On 2026-03-25 12:17, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 01:28:35 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 1:10 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 03/25/2026 04:21 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 25/03/2026 6:14 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 03/24/2026 09:21 PM, Don Y wrote:
<snip>
Certainly not.? Metalizations are hundreds or thousands of atoms >>>>>>>>> thick.
The sheet resistivity of a single-atom film would be absurd.
It would be practically infinite.
Not actually true.
Evaporation is directional, meaning
that every little hummock casts a shadow.? To reliably get a continuous
coating on a polymer film, you need to (a) sputter it, so that >>>>>>>> collisions with the background gas cause the metal to come in from all >>>>>>>> directions; and (b) use a film thicker than the maximum surface texture.
And then you have to not stretch the film afterward, or the metal will >>>>>>>> crack and be flaky ever after.? I spent an unpleasant couple of weeks in
2000, trying to get my 96-pixel metallized PVDF (pyroelectric polymer) >>>>>>>> image sensors to work reliably.? Took an astounding amount of
fully-manual silver painting.
The next batch used carbon-loaded ink, which would take a hard crease >>>>>>>> without cracking.? That was some kind of relief--slap 'em together and >>>>>>>> they just worked.
A google search on "The conductivity of a one atom thick layer of gold >>>>>>> in ohms per square"
gives a result that points out that a 10nm gold layer offers
2.9ohm/square, while a 1-2nm gold layer come in a at 530ohm/square. >>>>>>>
Evaporated gold does end up as adjacent crystals on the surface. >>>>>>> True single atom gold films - "goldene" - do rather better, but they are
hard to make.
Would you want to design with wound film caps that have kohms (or
megohms) of ESR?
Don't be silly. The resistance per square is across the length of the >>>>> capactor - the way is wound and connected puts the current paths across >>>>> the capaictor in series rather than in parallel
And with gold metalization?
There's very little gold laid down.
Absurd.
The absurdity is all in your ill-informed snap judgement
The most common film cap metalization is aluminum, sometimes zinc. A >>>>>> single atomic layer of either will oxidize after deposition. The AlO2 >>>>>> or ZnO monolayer will be a wonderful insulator.
But the oxide layer is about one atom thick. It protects the metal layer >>>>> underneath remarkably effectively.
> AI Overview
A natural, passive aluminum oxide layer typically forms instantly upon >>>>>> air exposure, with a thickness of roughly 1?10 nm (4?5 nm is common). >>>>>One or two atoms thick.
This amorphous, self-limiting layer protects the aluminum from further >>>>>> oxidation, though it can grow thicker over years or via accelerated >>>>>> processes like anodizing (0.5?25+ ?m).
Key Aspects of Aluminum Oxide Layer Thickness:
Natural Passive Layer: Immediately upon exposure to oxygen, a 2-5 >>>>>> nm layer forms. It can reach up to 10 nm over extended periods, but >>>>>> often stays around 4-5 nm in standard environments.
So you are actually agreeing with me, but didn't understand that what >>>>> you were posting supported my point of view.
Do you stand by your one-atom-thick-metalization claim?
You always snip your dumber lines.
The one atom thick metalisation is a mostly impractical idea
but my Google search - quoted above - which you don't seem to have
processed, says
" A google search on "The conductivity of a one atom thick layer of gold >>> in ohms per square" gives a result that points out that a 10nm gold
layer offers 2.9ohm/square, while a 1-2nm gold layer comes in a at
530ohm/square."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold
gives the diameter of a gold atom as 0.332nm. A 10nm thick layer of gold >>> ought to be 30 atoms thick, and 1nm layer three atoms thick yet the
resistance per square goes up by a factor 183 as you shrink the
thickness down by a factor of ten.
The critical thickness seems to be a couple of atoms thick rather than a >>> monolayer but once you have that there's no point in making it thicker.
You've got to have enough gold atoms there to let them organise
themselves into little crystals of gold that are still in electrical
contact.
Calling that a monolayer kept the idea simple enough that even you
should have been able to grasp it. but you clearly haven't.
You said (and of course snipped)
Metallised film capacitors are made by evaporating metal to create
metal vapour which you let condense onto the surface of a plastic film
- the metal layer is about one atom thick. Thinner and it won't
conduct electricty. Thicker and you are wasting metal. You wind two
layers of metalised film together to make your actual capacitor.
The problem with creating a metalised film one atom thick at it thinnest >point by evaporation/condensation is that it ends up having to
average four or five atoms thick. It's lumpy.
This takes time to explain.
What you posted was
Certainly not. Metalizations are hundreds or thousands of
atoms thick.
Which is decidedly absurd.
The sheet resistivity of a single-atom film would be absurd.
Search on "goldene". It's remarkably difficult to create a continuous
layer of single atom gold - you don't seem to be able to do it by >evaporation, but it has been done and it is about a couple of hundred
ohms per square. If a layer of gold 30 atoms thick has a resistivity of
2.9 ohm per square, a continuous single layer might be expected to
offer 87 ohms per square, but the conduction bands in goldene are a bit odd.
It would be practically infinite.
Not actually true.
So you still score a lot higher on the absurdity stakes.
But like I said fridges and freezers do. They are a big chunk in the
electric bill of otherwise frugal hopuseholds.
Yes, but not big enough to consume the sorts of "excess" power
that you can have available.ÿ Think: air conditioning, etc.
In my case not because I haven't used the big A/C in years. It's swamp cooler
only.
As nothing prevents you from powering that load from the utility
WHEN utility power is available, you can use the utility when
needed and NOT rely on it for storage.ÿ So, they have no voice in your >>>> deployment decisions and can only affect the price you pay as a
regular consumer.
When you do that here they charge you an effective $0.45/kWh. Motivation >>> enough not to do that.
They don't know the difference between a "solar enhanced" load
and a traditional load.ÿ That's the point.ÿ You aren't relying
on the utility to store your "excess", just *supplement* your needs.
Ideally one would supplement when prices are low. It Texas you can, in California that doesn't make economic sense. The ToU rates they offer are a bad
deal. You only get a miniscule discount during solar excess supply but when you
then want to cook or bake a meal in the evening you get severely punish by huge
upcharges. Meaning your total electricity bill would now be higher. Therefore,
many people like myself are not signing up for that.
And, if you've already put your "toe" in, you can easily put your
whole "foot" in if their "standard" pricing becomes too costly.
That gets expensive, fast, mainly because of high peak loads. But some
people out here do that and go completely off grid.
It is common, here, in outlying areas.ÿ But, they have to be able to
store their excess to get through periods of no power.
If, instead, you use local solar to power certain loads and utility
power to carry those loads when your storage is exhausted, then
you just look like a smaller user.
That can be done if you are mostly retired. For example, run the dryer or the
vacuum cleaner while it is sunny outside. For working people it's just not feasible.
Why no AI startups in Romney, West Virginia?
Well, everybody knows that :-)
Nowadays with remote work it doesn't matter so much. I have worked remotely for
decades. I have never personally met many of my longterm clients yet we have done lots of projects together, from concept to production. I could live on a
Caribbean island as long as Fedex lands there.
Also, if they'd tax on inventory during the year that would entice companies
to keep their stuff out of state. Or leave lock, stock and barrel. Which >>> some did.
That just increases their cost to do business *in* the state.
Our sales tax approaches 10% (9.mumble).ÿ On a $50K vehicle, there is a huge >> incentive to avoid that tax.ÿ Yet, you don't see dealerships moving outside >> of the region where the taxes are imposed -- because that inconveniences
their customers.ÿ Would you want to stake your business in an unincorporated >> area and have to worry about where you were going to get police, fire,
insurance, etc.?
As long as your competitors are stuck in the same boat, there is no real
incentive to play games.
It's the consumers who play those games. There is a reason why many people in
our area have their huge RVs registered in Florida, Montana, Oregon, et cetera.
Sometimes their whole fleet of cars.
I remember people in WA state who got together on Saturdays, rented the biggest
U-Haul truck they could find and then drove down to OR. There they bought whatever was needed. Big ticket items such as washers, dryers, fancy dishwashers, leather sofas, video games, computers, and so on. No sales tax in OR.
The same applies to mail-order firms.ÿ If buying on-line allowed you to avoid
local sales taxes, those retailers would have a price advantage.
And they do even though Internet sales are now taxed. Some people look for small mom and pop shops out of state whose biz volume is below the threshold so
they can sell sans tax. That's an instant 10% discount in your area.
On Sat, 28 Mar 2026 01:55:01 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 27/03/2026 10:24 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 27 Mar 2026 15:19:29 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 27/03/2026 1:48 am, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 27 Mar 2026 01:25:09 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>> wrote:
On 26/03/2026 8:48 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 16:51:54 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 26/03/2026 6:38 am, Phil Hobbs wrote:
On 2026-03-25 12:17, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 01:28:35 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 1:10 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 03/25/2026 04:21 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 25/03/2026 6:14 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 03/24/2026 09:21 PM, Don Y wrote:
The subject was and is film caps. They use aluminum or zinc or combo metalizations. Many atoms thick. Look it up.
On 03/23/2026 05:30 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 22/03/2026 5:12 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 03/21/2026 10:36 AM, john larkin wrote:
On Sat, 21 Mar 2026 10:06:37 -0700, Ross Finlayson
<ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
On 03/21/2026 09:41 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 03/21/2026 07:18 AM, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 20 Mar 2026 16:42:15 -0700, Ross Finlayson
<ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
On 03/20/2026 03:28 PM, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 20 Mar 2026 14:13:46 -0700, Ross Finlayson
<ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
On 03/20/2026 10:46 AM, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 20 Mar 2026 09:36:21 -0700, Joerg
<news@analogconsultants.com>
wrote:
On 3/18/26 4:05 PM, Don Y wrote:
On 3/18/2026 3:58 PM, Lasse Langwadt wrote:
On 3/18/26 23:09, Don Y wrote:
<snip>
A sufficiently large lever, ....
In the real world a sufficiently long lever would break.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator
talks about a sufficiently long cable, which - if anchored to the
earth's surface and extended above sychronous orbit height - would build
a stair way to the stars, or at least to synchronous orbit.
Any real material cable would break under the tension. Carbon nanotubes
are almost strong enough.
A usual account has that Coriolis force would destroy
yet another of Arthur Clarke's fever-dreams.
On 28/03/2026 5:43 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sat, 28 Mar 2026 01:55:01 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 27/03/2026 10:24 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 27 Mar 2026 15:19:29 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>> wrote:
On 27/03/2026 1:48 am, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 27 Mar 2026 01:25:09 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>> wrote:
On 26/03/2026 8:48 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 16:51:54 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 26/03/2026 6:38 am, Phil Hobbs wrote:
On 2026-03-25 12:17, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 01:28:35 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 1:10 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 03/25/2026 04:21 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 25/03/2026 6:14 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 03/24/2026 09:21 PM, Don Y wrote:
<snip>
The subject was and is film caps. They use aluminum or zinc or combo
metalizations. Many atoms thick. Look it up.
Where? I could do it for myself,
but if you want to pose as an expert, here's your chance to shine.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10q7ltu$atug$1@dont-email.me...
On 28/03/2026 5:43 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sat, 28 Mar 2026 01:55:01 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 27/03/2026 10:24 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 27 Mar 2026 15:19:29 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>> wrote:
On 27/03/2026 1:48 am, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 27 Mar 2026 01:25:09 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 26/03/2026 8:48 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 16:51:54 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 6:38 am, Phil Hobbs wrote:
On 2026-03-25 12:17, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 01:28:35 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 1:10 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 03/25/2026 04:21 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 25/03/2026 6:14 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 03/24/2026 09:21 PM, Don Y wrote:
<snip>
The subject was and is film caps. They use aluminum or zinc or combo
metalizations. Many atoms thick. Look it up.
Where? I could do it for myself,
For those who aren't convinced that Bill knows enough about search to
provide suitable links:
https://www.google.com/search?q=metallized+film+capacitor+construction&udm=2
https://www.google.com/search?q=metallized+film+capacitor+construction&udm=14
https://www.google.com/search?q=metalized+film+capacitor+film+thickness&udm=14
As a side note, someone made this:
https://udm14.com/
But I doubt that that will last many years.
but if you want to pose as an expert, here's your chance to shine.
On 30/03/2026 3:10 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10q7ltu$atug$1@dont-email.me...
On 28/03/2026 5:43 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sat, 28 Mar 2026 01:55:01 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>> wrote:
On 27/03/2026 10:24 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 27 Mar 2026 15:19:29 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>> wrote:
On 27/03/2026 1:48 am, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 27 Mar 2026 01:25:09 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 26/03/2026 8:48 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 16:51:54 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 6:38 am, Phil Hobbs wrote:
On 2026-03-25 12:17, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 01:28:35 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 1:10 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 03/25/2026 04:21 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 25/03/2026 6:14 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 03/24/2026 09:21 PM, Don Y wrote:
<snip>
The subject was and is film caps. They use aluminum or zinc or combo
metalizations. Many atoms thick. Look it up.
Where? I could do it for myself,
For those who aren't convinced that Bill knows enough about search to
provide suitable links:
https://www.google.com/search?q=metallized+film+capacitor+construction&udm=2 >>
https://www.google.com/search?q=metallized+film+capacitor+construction&udm=14
https://www.google.com/search?q=metalized+film+capacitor+film+thickness&udm=14
As a side note, someone made this:
https://udm14.com/
But I doubt that that will last many years.
The basic question was whether the metalisation was any thicker than
that required to get more than one atom thickness at the thinner points,
and none of your links seem to answer that explicitily.
There was some emphasis on the self-healing properties of very thin
films - when the there is an arc you want it to be able to vapourise all
the metal in the vicinity without getting the film hot enough to get >carbonised into a state where it too can conduct - but no discussion of >metalisation thickness as a pile of atoms.
but if you want to pose as an expert, here's your chance to shine.
You didn't shine.
On Mon, 30 Mar 2026 14:47:41 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 30/03/2026 3:10 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10q7ltu$atug$1@dont-email.me...
On 28/03/2026 5:43 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sat, 28 Mar 2026 01:55:01 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>> wrote:
On 27/03/2026 10:24 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 27 Mar 2026 15:19:29 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 27/03/2026 1:48 am, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 27 Mar 2026 01:25:09 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 8:48 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 16:51:54 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 6:38 am, Phil Hobbs wrote:
On 2026-03-25 12:17, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 01:28:35 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 1:10 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 03/25/2026 04:21 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 25/03/2026 6:14 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/24/2026 09:21 PM, Don Y wrote:
<snip>
The subject was and is film caps. They use aluminum or zinc or combo >>>>> metalizations. Many atoms thick. Look it up.
Where? I could do it for myself,
For those who aren't convinced that Bill knows enough about search to
provide suitable links:
https://www.google.com/search?q=metallized+film+capacitor+construction&udm=2
https://www.google.com/search?q=metallized+film+capacitor+construction&udm=14
https://www.google.com/search?q=metalized+film+capacitor+film+thickness&udm=14
As a side note, someone made this:
https://udm14.com/
But I doubt that that will last many years.
The basic question was whether the metalisation was any thicker than
that required to get more than one atom thickness at the thinner points,
and none of your links seem to answer that explicitily.
The basic google query says
AI Overview
Comparison of Metallized Film Capacitors and Film/Foil ...
Film capacitor metallization typically involves an ultra-thin layer of aluminum, zinc, or an alloy, measuring roughly 0.02 to 0.1 æm
There was some emphasis on the self-healing properties of very thin
films - when the there is an arc you want it to be able to vapourise all
the metal in the vicinity without getting the film hot enough to get
carbonised into a state where it too can conduct - but no discussion of
metalisation thickness as a pile of atoms.
but if you want to pose as an expert, here's your chance to shine.
You didn't shine.
The self-healing caps usually have a geometric pattern of square cap
regions connected by tiny fuses. Those are usually made with
aluminum/zinc composite layers.
You are allowed to look that up and learn.
On 31/03/2026 2:09 am, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 30 Mar 2026 14:47:41 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 30/03/2026 3:10 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10q7ltu$atug$1@dont-email.me...
On 28/03/2026 5:43 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sat, 28 Mar 2026 01:55:01 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>> wrote:
On 27/03/2026 10:24 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 27 Mar 2026 15:19:29 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 27/03/2026 1:48 am, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 27 Mar 2026 01:25:09 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 8:48 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 16:51:54 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 6:38 am, Phil Hobbs wrote:
On 2026-03-25 12:17, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 01:28:35 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 1:10 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 03/25/2026 04:21 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 25/03/2026 6:14 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/24/2026 09:21 PM, Don Y wrote:
<snip>
The subject was and is film caps. They use aluminum or zinc or combo >>>>>> metalizations. Many atoms thick. Look it up.
Where? I could do it for myself,
For those who aren't convinced that Bill knows enough about search to
provide suitable links:
https://www.google.com/search?q=metallized+film+capacitor+construction&udm=2
https://www.google.com/search?q=metallized+film+capacitor+construction&udm=14
https://www.google.com/search?q=metalized+film+capacitor+film+thickness&udm=14
As a side note, someone made this:
https://udm14.com/
But I doubt that that will last many years.
The basic question was whether the metalisation was any thicker than
that required to get more than one atom thickness at the thinner points, >>> and none of your links seem to answer that explicitily.
The basic google query says
AI Overview
Comparison of Metallized Film Capacitors and Film/Foil ...
Film capacitor metallization typically involves an ultra-thin layer of
aluminum, zinc, or an alloy, measuring roughly 0.02 to 0.1 ?m
There was some emphasis on the self-healing properties of very thin
films - when the there is an arc you want it to be able to vapourise all >>> the metal in the vicinity without getting the film hot enough to get
carbonised into a state where it too can conduct - but no discussion of
metalisation thickness as a pile of atoms.
but if you want to pose as an expert, here's your chance to shine.
You didn't shine.
The self-healing caps usually have a geometric pattern of square cap
regions connected by tiny fuses. Those are usually made with
aluminum/zinc composite layers.
back when I first learned about them - back in 1970 - they didn't.
The wikipedia article you are presumably relying on does talk about >"T-shaped sections" for specialised applications, but doesn't suggest
that this is what is usually meant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_capacitor
You are allowed to look that up and learn.
I make a habit of it. You didn't post the link you seem to have been
relying on, and and you don't seem to have learned as much from it as
you might have done. Your claim that the metalisation can be an >aluminium/zinc composite strikes me a dubious. The metalisation can be >either aluminium or zinc, but putting both down on the same film does
seem to be improbable.
On 31/03/2026 2:09 am, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 30 Mar 2026 14:47:41 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 30/03/2026 3:10 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10q7ltu$atug$1@dont-email.me...
On 28/03/2026 5:43 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sat, 28 Mar 2026 01:55:01 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>> wrote:
On 27/03/2026 10:24 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 27 Mar 2026 15:19:29 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 27/03/2026 1:48 am, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 27 Mar 2026 01:25:09 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 8:48 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 16:51:54 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 6:38 am, Phil Hobbs wrote:
On 2026-03-25 12:17, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 01:28:35 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 1:10 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 03/25/2026 04:21 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 25/03/2026 6:14 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/24/2026 09:21 PM, Don Y wrote:
<snip>
The subject was and is film caps. They use aluminum or zinc or combo >>>>>> metalizations. Many atoms thick. Look it up.
Where? I could do it for myself,
For those who aren't convinced that Bill knows enough about search to
provide suitable links:
https://www.google.com/search?q=metallized+film+capacitor+construction&udm=2
https://www.google.com/search?q=metallized+film+capacitor+construction&udm=14
https://www.google.com/search?q=metalized+film+capacitor+film+thickness&udm=14
As a side note, someone made this:
https://udm14.com/
But I doubt that that will last many years.
The basic question was whether the metalisation was any thicker than
that required to get more than one atom thickness at the thinner points, >>> and none of your links seem to answer that explicitily.
The basic google query says
AI Overview
Comparison of Metallized Film Capacitors and Film/Foil ...
Film capacitor metallization typically involves an ultra-thin layer of
aluminum, zinc, or an alloy, measuring roughly 0.02 to 0.1 ?m
There was some emphasis on the self-healing properties of very thin
films - when the there is an arc you want it to be able to vapourise all >>> the metal in the vicinity without getting the film hot enough to get
carbonised into a state where it too can conduct - but no discussion of
metalisation thickness as a pile of atoms.
but if you want to pose as an expert, here's your chance to shine.
You didn't shine.
The self-healing caps usually have a geometric pattern of square cap
regions connected by tiny fuses. Those are usually made with
aluminum/zinc composite layers.
back when I first learned about them - back in 1970 - they didn't.
The wikipedia article you are presumably relying on does talk about "T-shaped sections" for specialised applications, but doesn't
suggest that this is what is usually meant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_capacitor
You are allowed to look that up and learn.
I make a habit of it.
You didn't post the link you seem to have been relying on, and and you don't seem to have learned as much from it as you might
have done. Your claim that the metalisation can be an aluminium/zinc composite strikes me a dubious. The metalisation can be
either aluminium or zinc, but putting both down on the same film does seem to be improbable. Metal-spraying the ends of a
capacitor with finely divided molten zinc to connect the aluminium films to real wires does seem to happen.
The self-healing properties of evaporated metallic films does imply the films are made as thin as they can be - which is to say
just thick enough that the thinnest areas are just one atom thick. I should ahve thought of earlier - I've known about
self-healing forever, but don't get to think about it all that often.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
On Tue, 31 Mar 2026 16:13:21 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 31/03/2026 2:09 am, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 30 Mar 2026 14:47:41 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 30/03/2026 3:10 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10q7ltu$atug$1@dont-email.me...
On 28/03/2026 5:43 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sat, 28 Mar 2026 01:55:01 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 27/03/2026 10:24 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 27 Mar 2026 15:19:29 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 27/03/2026 1:48 am, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 27 Mar 2026 01:25:09 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 8:48 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 16:51:54 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 6:38 am, Phil Hobbs wrote:
On 2026-03-25 12:17, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 01:28:35 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 1:10 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/25/2026 04:21 AM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25/03/2026 6:14 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/24/2026 09:21 PM, Don Y wrote:
I make a habit of it. You didn't post the link you seem to have been
relying on, and and you don't seem to have learned as much from it as
you might have done. Your claim that the metalisation can be an
aluminium/zinc composite strikes me a dubious. The metalisation can be
either aluminium or zinc, but putting both down on the same film does
seem to be improbable.
You are allowed to look that up and learn.
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10qfl5l$326de$1@dont-email.me...
On 31/03/2026 2:09 am, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 30 Mar 2026 14:47:41 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 30/03/2026 3:10 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10q7ltu$atug$1@dont-email.me...
On 28/03/2026 5:43 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sat, 28 Mar 2026 01:55:01 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 27/03/2026 10:24 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 27 Mar 2026 15:19:29 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 27/03/2026 1:48 am, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 27 Mar 2026 01:25:09 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 8:48 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 16:51:54 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 6:38 am, Phil Hobbs wrote:
On 2026-03-25 12:17, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 01:28:35 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 1:10 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/25/2026 04:21 AM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25/03/2026 6:14 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/24/2026 09:21 PM, Don Y wrote:
<snip>
The subject was and is film caps. They use aluminum or zinc or combo >>>>>>> metalizations. Many atoms thick. Look it up.
Where? I could do it for myself,
For those who aren't convinced that Bill knows enough about search to >>>>> provide suitable links:
https://www.google.com/search?q=metallized+film+capacitor+construction&udm=2
https://www.google.com/search?q=metallized+film+capacitor+construction&udm=14
https://www.google.com/search?q=metalized+film+capacitor+film+thickness&udm=14
As a side note, someone made this:
https://udm14.com/
But I doubt that that will last many years.
The basic question was whether the metalisation was any thicker than
that required to get more than one atom thickness at the thinner points, >>>> and none of your links seem to answer that explicitily.
The basic google query says
AI Overview
Comparison of Metallized Film Capacitors and Film/Foil ...
Film capacitor metallization typically involves an ultra-thin layer of
aluminum, zinc, or an alloy, measuring roughly 0.02 to 0.1 ?
There was some emphasis on the self-healing properties of very thin
films - when the there is an arc you want it to be able to vapourise all >>>> the metal in the vicinity without getting the film hot enough to get
carbonised into a state where it too can conduct - but no discussion of >>>> metalisation thickness as a pile of atoms.
but if you want to pose as an expert, here's your chance to shine.
You didn't shine.
The self-healing caps usually have a geometric pattern of square cap
regions connected by tiny fuses. Those are usually made with
aluminum/zinc composite layers.
back when I first learned about them - back in 1970 - they didn't.
The wikipedia article you are presumably relying on does talk about "T-shaped sections" for specialised applications, but doesn't
suggest that this is what is usually meant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_capacitor
You are allowed to look that up and learn.
I make a habit of it.
Except in this case where you are clearly unable to do so.
https://www.google.com/search?q=aluminium%2Fzinc+composite+capacitor+film&csuir=1
If the AI summary doesn't appear click AI mode.
You might also try this:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Al/Zn+composite+capacitor+film
Since it's more suited to an individual who disdains others without a PhD.
You didn't post the link you seem to have been relying on, and and you don't seem to have learned as much from it as you might
have done. Your claim that the metalisation can be an aluminium/zinc composite strikes me a dubious. The metalisation can be
either aluminium or zinc, but putting both down on the same film does seem to be improbable. Metal-spraying the ends of a
capacitor with finely divided molten zinc to connect the aluminium films to real wires does seem to happen.
The self-healing properties of evaporated metallic films does imply the films are made as thin as they can be - which is to say
just thick enough that the thinnest areas are just one atom thick. I should ahve thought of earlier - I've known about
self-healing forever, but don't get to think about it all that often.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
On 1/04/2026 4:59 am, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 31 Mar 2026 16:13:21 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 31/03/2026 2:09 am, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 30 Mar 2026 14:47:41 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>> wrote:
On 30/03/2026 3:10 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10q7ltu$atug$1@dont-email.me...
On 28/03/2026 5:43 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sat, 28 Mar 2026 01:55:01 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 27/03/2026 10:24 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 27 Mar 2026 15:19:29 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 27/03/2026 1:48 am, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 27 Mar 2026 01:25:09 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 8:48 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 16:51:54 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 6:38 am, Phil Hobbs wrote:
On 2026-03-25 12:17, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 01:28:35 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 1:10 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/25/2026 04:21 AM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25/03/2026 6:14 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/24/2026 09:21 PM, Don Y wrote:
<snip>
I make a habit of it. You didn't post the link you seem to have been
relying on, and and you don't seem to have learned as much from it as
you might have done. Your claim that the metalisation can be an
aluminium/zinc composite strikes me a dubious. The metalisation can be
either aluminium or zinc, but putting both down on the same film does
seem to be improbable.
You are allowed to look that up and learn.
You advanced the proposition - it's up to you to find the evidence to >support it.
On 1/04/2026 11:34 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10qfl5l$326de$1@dont-email.me...
On 31/03/2026 2:09 am, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 30 Mar 2026 14:47:41 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>> wrote:
On 30/03/2026 3:10 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10q7ltu$atug$1@dont-email.me...
On 28/03/2026 5:43 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sat, 28 Mar 2026 01:55:01 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 27/03/2026 10:24 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 27 Mar 2026 15:19:29 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 27/03/2026 1:48 am, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 27 Mar 2026 01:25:09 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 8:48 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 16:51:54 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 6:38 am, Phil Hobbs wrote:
On 2026-03-25 12:17, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 01:28:35 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 1:10 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/25/2026 04:21 AM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25/03/2026 6:14 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/24/2026 09:21 PM, Don Y wrote:
<snip>
The subject was and is film caps. They use aluminum or zinc or combo >>>>>>>> metalizations. Many atoms thick. Look it up.
Where? I could do it for myself,
For those who aren't convinced that Bill knows enough about search to >>>>>> provide suitable links:
https://www.google.com/search?q=metallized+film+capacitor+construction&udm=2
https://www.google.com/search?q=metallized+film+capacitor+construction&udm=14
https://www.google.com/search?q=metalized+film+capacitor+film+thickness&udm=14
As a side note, someone made this:
https://udm14.com/
But I doubt that that will last many years.
The basic question was whether the metalisation was any thicker than >>>>> that required to get more than one atom thickness at the thinner points, >>>>> and none of your links seem to answer that explicitily.
The basic google query says
AI Overview
Comparison of Metallized Film Capacitors and Film/Foil ...
Film capacitor metallization typically involves an ultra-thin layer of >>>> aluminum, zinc, or an alloy, measuring roughly 0.02 to 0.1 ?
There was some emphasis on the self-healing properties of very thin
films - when the there is an arc you want it to be able to vapourise all >>>>> the metal in the vicinity without getting the film hot enough to get >>>>> carbonised into a state where it too can conduct - but no discussion of >>>>> metalisation thickness as a pile of atoms.
You didn't shine.but if you want to pose as an expert, here's your chance to shine. >>>>>
The self-healing caps usually have a geometric pattern of square cap
regions connected by tiny fuses. Those are usually made with
aluminum/zinc composite layers.
back when I first learned about them - back in 1970 - they didn't.
The wikipedia article you are presumably relying on does talk about "T-shaped sections" for specialised applications, but doesn't
suggest that this is what is usually meant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_capacitor
You are allowed to look that up and learn.
I make a habit of it.
Except in this case where you are clearly unable to do so.
https://www.google.com/search?q=aluminium%2Fzinc+composite+capacitor+film&csuir=1
If the AI summary doesn't appear click AI mode.
This is actually the informative link.
https://www.capacitorconnect.com/what-are-different-types-of-metallization-used-in-capacitor-films/
It seems that in some applications it is worth putting down an initial - >very tin layer of aluminium to give a somewhat thicker layer of zinc, >something that is easier to bond to than bare plastic film. The link
does make the point that zinc films self-heal better than aluminium
films - it takes less energy to blow it away from the short-circuit path
- but they do oxidise at room temperature in way that alumniuum films >don't.
On Wed, 1 Apr 2026 15:36:25 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 1/04/2026 11:34 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10qfl5l$326de$1@dont-email.me...
On 31/03/2026 2:09 am, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 30 Mar 2026 14:47:41 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>> wrote:
On 30/03/2026 3:10 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10q7ltu$atug$1@dont-email.me...
On 28/03/2026 5:43 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sat, 28 Mar 2026 01:55:01 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 27/03/2026 10:24 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 27 Mar 2026 15:19:29 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 27/03/2026 1:48 am, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 27 Mar 2026 01:25:09 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 8:48 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 16:51:54 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 6:38 am, Phil Hobbs wrote:
On 2026-03-25 12:17, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 01:28:35 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 1:10 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/25/2026 04:21 AM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25/03/2026 6:14 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/24/2026 09:21 PM, Don Y wrote:
<snip>
The subject was and is film caps. They use aluminum or zinc or combo >>>>>>>>> metalizations. Many atoms thick. Look it up.
Where? I could do it for myself,
For those who aren't convinced that Bill knows enough about search to >>>>>>> provide suitable links:
https://www.google.com/search?q=metallized+film+capacitor+construction&udm=2
https://www.google.com/search?q=metallized+film+capacitor+construction&udm=14
https://www.google.com/search?q=metalized+film+capacitor+film+thickness&udm=14
As a side note, someone made this:
https://udm14.com/
But I doubt that that will last many years.
The basic question was whether the metalisation was any thicker than >>>>>> that required to get more than one atom thickness at the thinner points, >>>>>> and none of your links seem to answer that explicitily.
The basic google query says
AI Overview
Comparison of Metallized Film Capacitors and Film/Foil ...
Film capacitor metallization typically involves an ultra-thin layer of >>>>> aluminum, zinc, or an alloy, measuring roughly 0.02 to 0.1 ?
There was some emphasis on the self-healing properties of very thin >>>>>> films - when the there is an arc you want it to be able to vapourise all >>>>>> the metal in the vicinity without getting the film hot enough to get >>>>>> carbonised into a state where it too can conduct - but no discussion of >>>>>> metalisation thickness as a pile of atoms.
You didn't shine.but if you want to pose as an expert, here's your chance to shine. >>>>>>
The self-healing caps usually have a geometric pattern of square cap >>>>> regions connected by tiny fuses. Those are usually made with
aluminum/zinc composite layers.
back when I first learned about them - back in 1970 - they didn't.
The wikipedia article you are presumably relying on does talk about "T-shaped sections" for specialised applications, but doesn't
suggest that this is what is usually meant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_capacitor
You are allowed to look that up and learn.
I make a habit of it.
Except in this case where you are clearly unable to do so.
https://www.google.com/search?q=aluminium%2Fzinc+composite+capacitor+film&csuir=1
If the AI summary doesn't appear click AI mode.
This is actually the informative link.
https://www.capacitorconnect.com/what-are-different-types-of-metallization-used-in-capacitor-films/
It seems that in some applications it is worth putting down an initial -
very thin layer of aluminium to give a somewhat thicker layer of zinc,
something that is easier to bond to than bare plastic film. The link
does make the point that zinc films self-heal better than aluminium
films - it takes less energy to blow it away from the short-circuit path
- but they do oxidise at room temperature in way that alumniuum films
don't.
Told ya so.
On 1/04/2026 7:10 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 1 Apr 2026 15:36:25 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 1/04/2026 11:34 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10qfl5l$326de$1@dont-email.me...
On 31/03/2026 2:09 am, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 30 Mar 2026 14:47:41 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>> wrote:
On 30/03/2026 3:10 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10q7ltu$atug$1@dont-email.me...
On 28/03/2026 5:43 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sat, 28 Mar 2026 01:55:01 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 27/03/2026 10:24 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 27 Mar 2026 15:19:29 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 27/03/2026 1:48 am, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 27 Mar 2026 01:25:09 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 8:48 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 16:51:54 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 6:38 am, Phil Hobbs wrote:
On 2026-03-25 12:17, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 01:28:35 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 1:10 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/25/2026 04:21 AM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25/03/2026 6:14 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/24/2026 09:21 PM, Don Y wrote:
<snip>
The subject was and is film caps. They use aluminum or zinc or combo >>>>>>>>>> metalizations. Many atoms thick. Look it up.
Where? I could do it for myself,
For those who aren't convinced that Bill knows enough about search to >>>>>>>> provide suitable links:
https://www.google.com/search?q=metallized+film+capacitor+construction&udm=2
https://www.google.com/search?q=metallized+film+capacitor+construction&udm=14
https://www.google.com/search?q=metalized+film+capacitor+film+thickness&udm=14
As a side note, someone made this:
https://udm14.com/
But I doubt that that will last many years.
The basic question was whether the metalisation was any thicker than >>>>>>> that required to get more than one atom thickness at the thinner points,
and none of your links seem to answer that explicitily.
The basic google query says
AI Overview
Comparison of Metallized Film Capacitors and Film/Foil ...
Film capacitor metallization typically involves an ultra-thin layer of >>>>>> aluminum, zinc, or an alloy, measuring roughly 0.02 to 0.1 ?
There was some emphasis on the self-healing properties of very thin >>>>>>> films - when the there is an arc you want it to be able to vapourise all
the metal in the vicinity without getting the film hot enough to get >>>>>>> carbonised into a state where it too can conduct - but no discussion of >>>>>>> metalisation thickness as a pile of atoms.
You didn't shine.but if you want to pose as an expert, here's your chance to shine. >>>>>>>
The self-healing caps usually have a geometric pattern of square cap >>>>>> regions connected by tiny fuses. Those are usually made with
aluminum/zinc composite layers.
back when I first learned about them - back in 1970 - they didn't.
The wikipedia article you are presumably relying on does talk about "T-shaped sections" for specialised applications, but
doesn't
suggest that this is what is usually meant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_capacitor
You are allowed to look that up and learn.
I make a habit of it.
Except in this case where you are clearly unable to do so.
More unwilling than incapable. Educating you is a thankless task, in large part because you don't show any sigh of getting
educated by exposure to more detailed information.
https://www.google.com/search?q=aluminium%2Fzinc+composite+capacitor+film&csuir=1
If the AI summary doesn't appear click AI mode.
This is actually the informative link.
https://www.capacitorconnect.com/what-are-different-types-of-metallization-used-in-capacitor-films/
It seems that in some applications it is worth putting down an initial - >>> very thin layer of aluminium to give a somewhat thicker layer of zinc,
something that is easier to bond to than bare plastic film. The link
does make the point that zinc films self-heal better than aluminium
films - it takes less energy to blow it away from the short-circuit path >>> - but they do oxidise at room temperature in way that alumniuum films
don't.
Told ya so.
You didn't.
You made a bald claim unsupported by any evidence.
You did post a link that presented a whole grab-bag of possible sources, but you didn't identify any of them as actually useful,
so you didn't tell me anything. Even the sloppy nature of your thinking that this revealed (again) has been on show for the past
twenty years.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10qjddp$ad1m$2@dont-email.me...
On 1/04/2026 7:10 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 1 Apr 2026 15:36:25 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 1/04/2026 11:34 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10qfl5l$326de$1@dont-email.me...
On 31/03/2026 2:09 am, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 30 Mar 2026 14:47:41 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 30/03/2026 3:10 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10q7ltu$atug$1@dont-email.me...
On 28/03/2026 5:43 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sat, 28 Mar 2026 01:55:01 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 27/03/2026 10:24 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 27 Mar 2026 15:19:29 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 27/03/2026 1:48 am, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 27 Mar 2026 01:25:09 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 8:48 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 16:51:54 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 6:38 am, Phil Hobbs wrote:
On 2026-03-25 12:17, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 01:28:35 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 1:10 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/25/2026 04:21 AM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25/03/2026 6:14 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/24/2026 09:21 PM, Don Y wrote:
Told ya so.
You didn't.
Yes he did.
You made a bald claim unsupported by any evidence.
LOL
Eb Major has three flats.
I can find evidence if you want but I don't provide evidence for every statement I make because others can either find out for themselves or they may already know.
You did post a link that presented a whole grab-bag of possible sources, but you didn't identify any of them as actually useful,
so you didn't tell me anything. Even the sloppy nature of your thinking that this revealed (again) has been on show for the past
twenty years.
On 2/04/2026 3:35 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10qjddp$ad1m$2@dont-email.me...
On 1/04/2026 7:10 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 1 Apr 2026 15:36:25 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 1/04/2026 11:34 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10qfl5l$326de$1@dont-email.me...
On 31/03/2026 2:09 am, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 30 Mar 2026 14:47:41 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 30/03/2026 3:10 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10q7ltu$atug$1@dont-email.me...
On 28/03/2026 5:43 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sat, 28 Mar 2026 01:55:01 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 27/03/2026 10:24 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 27 Mar 2026 15:19:29 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 27/03/2026 1:48 am, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 27 Mar 2026 01:25:09 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 8:48 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 16:51:54 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 6:38 am, Phil Hobbs wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-03-25 12:17, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 01:28:35 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 1:10 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/25/2026 04:21 AM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25/03/2026 6:14 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/24/2026 09:21 PM, Don Y wrote:
<snip>
Told ya so.
You didn't.
Yes he did.
In your ever-so-expert opinion.
You made a bald claim unsupported by any evidence.
LOL
Edward Rawde is easily amused.
Eb Major has three flats.
I can find evidence if you want but I don't provide evidence for every
statement I make because others can either find out for themselves or they >> may already know.
John Larkin made vague and unsupported claims about aluminium and zinc metallisation in plastic film capacitors. He did - more or
less accidentally - came up with a link to more specific information, but he didn't highlight the link in any way or indicate what
the specific information meant.
It is perfectly true that any of us might have come up with that for ourselves if we had looked hard enough, but in this
particular instance he didn't look very hard. He rarely does.
You did post a link that presented a whole grab-bag of possible sources, but you didn't identify any of them as actually useful,
so you didn't tell me anything. Even the sloppy nature of your thinking that this revealed (again) has been on show for the past
twenty years.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10qkpa5$piq2$2@dont-email.me...
On 2/04/2026 3:35 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10qjddp$ad1m$2@dont-email.me...
On 1/04/2026 7:10 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 1 Apr 2026 15:36:25 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>> wrote:
On 1/04/2026 11:34 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10qfl5l$326de$1@dont-email.me...
On 31/03/2026 2:09 am, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 30 Mar 2026 14:47:41 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 30/03/2026 3:10 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10q7ltu$atug$1@dont-email.me...
On 28/03/2026 5:43 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sat, 28 Mar 2026 01:55:01 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 27/03/2026 10:24 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 27 Mar 2026 15:19:29 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 27/03/2026 1:48 am, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 27 Mar 2026 01:25:09 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 8:48 pm, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 16:51:54 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 6:38 am, Phil Hobbs wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-03-25 12:17, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 01:28:35 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 1:10 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/25/2026 04:21 AM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25/03/2026 6:14 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/24/2026 09:21 PM, Don Y wrote:
<snip>
Told ya so.
You didn't.
Yes he did.
In your ever-so-expert opinion.
I think I remember getting a response like that on a different subject a few years ago.
From a teenager.
On 2/04/2026 3:07 pm, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:10qkpa5$piq2$2@dont-email.me...
On 2/04/2026 3:35 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:10qjddp$ad1m$2@dont-email.me...
On 1/04/2026 7:10 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 1 Apr 2026 15:36:25 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>> wrote:
On 1/04/2026 11:34 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:10qfl5l$326de$1@dont-email.me...
On 31/03/2026 2:09 am, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 30 Mar 2026 14:47:41 +1100, Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 30/03/2026 3:10 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:10q7ltu$atug$1@dont-email.me...
On 28/03/2026 5:43 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sat, 28 Mar 2026 01:55:01 +1100, Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 27/03/2026 10:24 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 27 Mar 2026 15:19:29 +1100, Bill Sloman >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 27/03/2026 1:48 am, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 27 Mar 2026 01:25:09 +1100, Bill Sloman >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 8:48 pm, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 16:51:54 +1100, Bill Sloman >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 6:38 am, Phil Hobbs wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-03-25 12:17, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 01:28:35 +1100, Bill Sloman >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 1:10 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/25/2026 04:21 AM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25/03/2026 6:14 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/24/2026 09:21 PM, Don Y wrote:
<snip>
Told ya so.
You didn't.
Yes he did.
In your ever-so-expert opinion.
I think I remember getting a response like that on a different subject
a few years ago.
From a teenager.
Some teenagers are pretty good at recognising childish responses.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
On 04/01/2026 11:40 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 2/04/2026 3:07 pm, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:10qkpa5$piq2$2@dont-email.me...
On 2/04/2026 3:35 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:10qjddp$ad1m$2@dont-email.me...
On 1/04/2026 7:10 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 1 Apr 2026 15:36:25 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 1/04/2026 11:34 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:10qfl5l$326de$1@dont-email.me...
On 31/03/2026 2:09 am, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 30 Mar 2026 14:47:41 +1100, Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 30/03/2026 3:10 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>> news:10q7ltu$atug$1@dont-email.me...
On 28/03/2026 5:43 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sat, 28 Mar 2026 01:55:01 +1100, Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 27/03/2026 10:24 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 27 Mar 2026 15:19:29 +1100, Bill Sloman >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 27/03/2026 1:48 am, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 27 Mar 2026 01:25:09 +1100, Bill Sloman >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 8:48 pm, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 16:51:54 +1100, Bill Sloman >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 6:38 am, Phil Hobbs wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-03-25 12:17, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 01:28:35 +1100, Bill Sloman >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 1:10 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/25/2026 04:21 AM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25/03/2026 6:14 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/24/2026 09:21 PM, Don Y wrote:
<snip>
Told ya so.
You didn't.
Yes he did.
In your ever-so-expert opinion.
I think I remember getting a response like that on a different subject
a few years ago.
From a teenager.
Some teenagers are pretty good at recognising childish responses.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Weren't we having a conversation here?
Something about power conversion (and inversion), ...,
not so much the "projection".
"Chivalry's not dead /
it's just curled up /
weakly kicking in the corner /
with Courtesy and Conversation."
On 2/04/2026 3:35 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10qjddp$ad1m$2@dont-email.me...
On 1/04/2026 7:10 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 1 Apr 2026 15:36:25 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 1/04/2026 11:34 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10qfl5l$326de$1@dont-email.me...
On 31/03/2026 2:09 am, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 30 Mar 2026 14:47:41 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 30/03/2026 3:10 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10q7ltu$atug$1@dont-email.me...
On 28/03/2026 5:43 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sat, 28 Mar 2026 01:55:01 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 27/03/2026 10:24 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 27 Mar 2026 15:19:29 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 27/03/2026 1:48 am, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 27 Mar 2026 01:25:09 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 8:48 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 16:51:54 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 6:38 am, Phil Hobbs wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-03-25 12:17, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 01:28:35 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 1:10 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/25/2026 04:21 AM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25/03/2026 6:14 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/24/2026 09:21 PM, Don Y wrote:
<snip>
Told ya so.
You didn't.
Yes he did.
In your ever-so-expert opinion.
You made a bald claim unsupported by any evidence.
LOL
Edward Rawde is easily amused.
Eb Major has three flats.
I can find evidence if you want but I don't provide evidence for every
statement I make because others can either find out for themselves or they >> may already know.
John Larkin made vague and unsupported claims about aluminium and zinc >metallisation in plastic film capacitors. He did - more or less
accidentally - came up with a link to more specific information, but he >didn't highlight the link in any way or indicate what the specific >information meant.
It is perfectly true that any of us might have come up with that for >ourselves if we had looked hard enough, but in this particular instance
he didn't look very hard. He rarely does.
On 04/01/2026 11:40 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 2/04/2026 3:07 pm, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:10qkpa5$piq2$2@dont-email.me...
On 2/04/2026 3:35 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:10qjddp$ad1m$2@dont-email.me...
On 1/04/2026 7:10 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 1 Apr 2026 15:36:25 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 1/04/2026 11:34 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:10qfl5l$326de$1@dont-email.me...
On 31/03/2026 2:09 am, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 30 Mar 2026 14:47:41 +1100, Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 30/03/2026 3:10 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>> news:10q7ltu$atug$1@dont-email.me...
On 28/03/2026 5:43 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sat, 28 Mar 2026 01:55:01 +1100, Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 27/03/2026 10:24 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 27 Mar 2026 15:19:29 +1100, Bill Sloman >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 27/03/2026 1:48 am, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 27 Mar 2026 01:25:09 +1100, Bill Sloman >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 8:48 pm, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 16:51:54 +1100, Bill Sloman >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 6:38 am, Phil Hobbs wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-03-25 12:17, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 01:28:35 +1100, Bill Sloman >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 1:10 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/25/2026 04:21 AM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25/03/2026 6:14 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/24/2026 09:21 PM, Don Y wrote:
<snip>
Told ya so.
You didn't.
Yes he did.
In your ever-so-expert opinion.
I think I remember getting a response like that on a different subject
a few years ago.
From a teenager.
Some teenagers are pretty good at recognising childish responses.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Weren't we having a conversation here?
Something about power conversion (and inversion), ...,
not so much the "projection".
"Chivalry's not dead /
it's just curled up /
weakly kicking in the corner /
with Courtesy and Conversation."
"Ross Finlayson" <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote in message news:WsGdnXCwG5dQ6VP0nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@giganews.com...
On 04/01/2026 11:40 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 2/04/2026 3:07 pm, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:10qkpa5$piq2$2@dont-email.me...
On 2/04/2026 3:35 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:10qjddp$ad1m$2@dont-email.me...
On 1/04/2026 7:10 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 1 Apr 2026 15:36:25 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 1/04/2026 11:34 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:10qfl5l$326de$1@dont-email.me...
On 31/03/2026 2:09 am, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 30 Mar 2026 14:47:41 +1100, Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 30/03/2026 3:10 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:10q7ltu$atug$1@dont-email.me...
On 28/03/2026 5:43 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sat, 28 Mar 2026 01:55:01 +1100, Bill Sloman >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 27/03/2026 10:24 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 27 Mar 2026 15:19:29 +1100, Bill Sloman >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 27/03/2026 1:48 am, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 27 Mar 2026 01:25:09 +1100, Bill Sloman >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 8:48 pm, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 16:51:54 +1100, Bill Sloman >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 6:38 am, Phil Hobbs wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-03-25 12:17, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 01:28:35 +1100, Bill Sloman >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 1:10 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/25/2026 04:21 AM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25/03/2026 6:14 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/24/2026 09:21 PM, Don Y wrote:
<snip>
Told ya so.
You didn't.
Yes he did.
In your ever-so-expert opinion.
I think I remember getting a response like that on a different subject >>>> a few years ago.
From a teenager.
Some teenagers are pretty good at recognising childish responses.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Weren't we having a conversation here?
Yes but then Bill arrived.
I'm done with this.
Something about power conversion (and inversion), ...,
not so much the "projection".
On Thu, 2 Apr 2026 06:53:12 -0700, Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
On 04/01/2026 11:40 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 2/04/2026 3:07 pm, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:10qkpa5$piq2$2@dont-email.me...
On 2/04/2026 3:35 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:10qjddp$ad1m$2@dont-email.me...
On 1/04/2026 7:10 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 1 Apr 2026 15:36:25 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 1/04/2026 11:34 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:10qfl5l$326de$1@dont-email.me...
On 31/03/2026 2:09 am, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 30 Mar 2026 14:47:41 +1100, Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 30/03/2026 3:10 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:10q7ltu$atug$1@dont-email.me...
On 28/03/2026 5:43 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sat, 28 Mar 2026 01:55:01 +1100, Bill Sloman >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 27/03/2026 10:24 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 27 Mar 2026 15:19:29 +1100, Bill Sloman >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 27/03/2026 1:48 am, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 27 Mar 2026 01:25:09 +1100, Bill Sloman >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 8:48 pm, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 16:51:54 +1100, Bill Sloman >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 6:38 am, Phil Hobbs wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-03-25 12:17, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 01:28:35 +1100, Bill Sloman >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 1:10 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/25/2026 04:21 AM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25/03/2026 6:14 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/24/2026 09:21 PM, Don Y wrote:
<snip>
Told ya so.
You didn't.
Yes he did.
In your ever-so-expert opinion.
I think I remember getting a response like that on a different subject >>>> a few years ago.
From a teenager.
Some teenagers are pretty good at recognising childish responses.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Weren't we having a conversation here?
Something about power conversion (and inversion), ...,
not so much the "projection".
"Chivalry's not dead /
it's just curled up /
weakly kicking in the corner /
with Courtesy and Conversation."
It had drifted into the metalization of film capacitors.
John Larkin
Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center
Lunatic Fringe Electronics
On 3/04/2026 1:32 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Ross Finlayson" <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:WsGdnXCwG5dQ6VP0nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@giganews.com...
On 04/01/2026 11:40 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 2/04/2026 3:07 pm, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:10qkpa5$piq2$2@dont-email.me...
On 2/04/2026 3:35 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:10qjddp$ad1m$2@dont-email.me...
On 1/04/2026 7:10 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 1 Apr 2026 15:36:25 +1100, Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 1/04/2026 11:34 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:10qfl5l$326de$1@dont-email.me...
On 31/03/2026 2:09 am, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 30 Mar 2026 14:47:41 +1100, Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 30/03/2026 3:10 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:10q7ltu$atug$1@dont-email.me...
On 28/03/2026 5:43 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sat, 28 Mar 2026 01:55:01 +1100, Bill Sloman >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 27/03/2026 10:24 pm, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 27 Mar 2026 15:19:29 +1100, Bill Sloman >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 27/03/2026 1:48 am, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 27 Mar 2026 01:25:09 +1100, Bill Sloman >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 8:48 pm, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 16:51:54 +1100, Bill Sloman >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 6:38 am, Phil Hobbs wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-03-25 12:17, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 01:28:35 +1100, Bill Sloman >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 1:10 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/25/2026 04:21 AM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25/03/2026 6:14 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/24/2026 09:21 PM, Don Y wrote:
<snip>
Told ya so.
You didn't.
Yes he did.
In your ever-so-expert opinion.
I think I remember getting a response like that on a different subject >>>>> a few years ago.
From a teenager.
Some teenagers are pretty good at recognising childish responses.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Weren't we having a conversation here?
Some of us were, then Edward Rawde horned in. Like John Larkin, he
expects more respect than he deserves, and is resentful about not
getting it.
Yes but then Bill arrived.
I'm done with this.
He injects himself into the conversation, gets rebuked and retreats in a tiff.
Something about power conversion (and inversion), ...,
not so much the "projection".
The thread warped into an discussion of metallised film capacitors. You
had posted a daft idea about making compact high value capacitors by effectively crumpling up the opposed surfaces as matching beds of nails, ignoring the fact that spikes generate field emission current.
Arc discharges depend on this fact - the discharging surface gets hot
enough to distort into lots of small but very sharp spikes when
subjected to a high electric field.
<snip>
On Thu, 2 Apr 2026 14:54:36 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 2/04/2026 3:35 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10qjddp$ad1m$2@dont-email.me...
On 1/04/2026 7:10 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 1 Apr 2026 15:36:25 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>> wrote:
On 1/04/2026 11:34 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10qfl5l$326de$1@dont-email.me...
On 31/03/2026 2:09 am, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 30 Mar 2026 14:47:41 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 30/03/2026 3:10 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10q7ltu$atug$1@dont-email.me...
On 28/03/2026 5:43 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sat, 28 Mar 2026 01:55:01 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 27/03/2026 10:24 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 27 Mar 2026 15:19:29 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 27/03/2026 1:48 am, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 27 Mar 2026 01:25:09 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 8:48 pm, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 16:51:54 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 6:38 am, Phil Hobbs wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-03-25 12:17, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 01:28:35 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 1:10 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/25/2026 04:21 AM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25/03/2026 6:14 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/24/2026 09:21 PM, Don Y wrote:
<snip>
Told ya so.
You didn't.
Yes he did.
In your ever-so-expert opinion.
You made a bald claim unsupported by any evidence.
LOL
Edward Rawde is easily amused.
That makes life more enjoyable. Are you ever amused? Certainly not
here.
Eb Major has three flats.
I can find evidence if you want but I don't provide evidence for every
statement I make because others can either find out for themselves or they >>> may already know.
John Larkin made vague and unsupported claims about aluminium and zinc
metallisation in plastic film capacitors. He did - more or less
accidentally - came up with a link to more specific information, but he
didn't highlight the link in any way or indicate what the specific
information meant.
I said that film caps do not use single-atom thick metalization, and
that some use combined aluminum and zinc metalization. I learned those
in a few minutes of web searching.
It is perfectly true that any of us might have come up with that forourselves if we had looked hard enough, but in this particular instance
he didn't look very hard. He rarely does.
It wasn't hard to find facts about metalization. The mystery is why
you couldn't.
I wonder how really big caps are constructed, like the utility
power-factor things.
I used to buy huge oil caps when I was a kid, to pop flashtubes or
just make loud noises. I'd run them at all the voltage I could make,
like 25 KV.
On 04/02/2026 08:45 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 3/04/2026 1:32 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Ross Finlayson" <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:WsGdnXCwG5dQ6VP0nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@giganews.com...
On 04/01/2026 11:40 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 2/04/2026 3:07 pm, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:10qkpa5$piq2$2@dont-email.me...
On 2/04/2026 3:35 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:10qjddp$ad1m$2@dont-email.me...
On 1/04/2026 7:10 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 1 Apr 2026 15:36:25 +1100, Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 1/04/2026 11:34 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:10qfl5l$326de$1@dont-email.me...
On 31/03/2026 2:09 am, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 30 Mar 2026 14:47:41 +1100, Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 30/03/2026 3:10 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:10q7ltu$atug$1@dont-email.me...
On 28/03/2026 5:43 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sat, 28 Mar 2026 01:55:01 +1100, Bill Sloman >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 27/03/2026 10:24 pm, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 27 Mar 2026 15:19:29 +1100, Bill Sloman >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 27/03/2026 1:48 am, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 27 Mar 2026 01:25:09 +1100, Bill Sloman >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 8:48 pm, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 16:51:54 +1100, Bill Sloman >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 6:38 am, Phil Hobbs wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-03-25 12:17, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 01:28:35 +1100, Bill Sloman >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 1:10 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/25/2026 04:21 AM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25/03/2026 6:14 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/24/2026 09:21 PM, Don Y wrote:
<snip>
Told ya so.
You didn't.
Yes he did.
In your ever-so-expert opinion.
I think I remember getting a response like that on a different
subject
a few years ago.
From a teenager.
Some teenagers are pretty good at recognising childish responses.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Weren't we having a conversation here?
Some of us were, then Edward Rawde horned in. Like John Larkin, he
expects more respect than he deserves, and is resentful about not
getting it.
Yes but then Bill arrived.
I'm done with this.
He injects himself into the conversation, gets rebuked and retreats in a
tiff.
Something about power conversion (and inversion), ...,
not so much the "projection".
The thread warped into an discussion of metallised film capacitors. You
had posted a daft idea about making compact high value capacitors by
effectively crumpling up the opposed surfaces as matching beds of nails,
ignoring the fact that spikes generate field emission current.
Arc discharges depend on this fact - the discharging surface gets hot
enough to distort into lots of small but very sharp spikes when
subjected to a high electric field.
<snip>
Aye, it's a simplest sort of idea of an ideal super-capacitor,
then about the why's and wherefore's.
On 3/04/2026 2:05 am, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 2 Apr 2026 14:54:36 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 2/04/2026 3:35 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10qjddp$ad1m$2@dont-email.me...
On 1/04/2026 7:10 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 1 Apr 2026 15:36:25 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>> wrote:
On 1/04/2026 11:34 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10qfl5l$326de$1@dont-email.me...
On 31/03/2026 2:09 am, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 30 Mar 2026 14:47:41 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 30/03/2026 3:10 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10q7ltu$atug$1@dont-email.me...
On 28/03/2026 5:43 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sat, 28 Mar 2026 01:55:01 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 27/03/2026 10:24 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 27 Mar 2026 15:19:29 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 27/03/2026 1:48 am, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 27 Mar 2026 01:25:09 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 8:48 pm, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 16:51:54 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 6:38 am, Phil Hobbs wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-03-25 12:17, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 01:28:35 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 1:10 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/25/2026 04:21 AM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25/03/2026 6:14 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/24/2026 09:21 PM, Don Y wrote:
<snip>
Told ya so.
You didn't.
Yes he did.
In your ever-so-expert opinion.
You made a bald claim unsupported by any evidence.
LOL
Edward Rawde is easily amused.
That makes life more enjoyable. Are you ever amused? Certainly not
here.
Eb Major has three flats.
I can find evidence if you want but I don't provide evidence for every >>>> statement I make because others can either find out for themselves or they >>>> may already know.
John Larkin made vague and unsupported claims about aluminium and zinc
metallisation in plastic film capacitors. He did - more or less
accidentally - came up with a link to more specific information, but he
didn't highlight the link in any way or indicate what the specific
information meant.
I said that film caps do not use single-atom thick metalization, and
that some use combined aluminum and zinc metalization. I learned those
in a few minutes of web searching.
It is perfectly true that any of us might have come up with that forourselves if we had looked hard enough, but in this particular instance
he didn't look very hard. He rarely does.
It wasn't hard to find facts about metalization. The mystery is why
you couldn't.
I certainly could have done, but you'd made the claim - why should I bother?
When I looked at one of the several links you'd posted, I was able to dig out a tolerably coherent exposition of what was actually
going on, and posted it, which you hadn't done.
I wonder how really big caps are constructed, like the utility
power-factor things.
If you had read the link you posted, you'd have found out.
The problem with very high voltage differences is that you get corona discharge, so you have to limit the voltage over individual
gaps to less than about 100V. If you just stack your film layers you can do that.
There's no explicit DC path between the successive layers, but the leakage current rises rapidly (and quasi exponentially) with
voltage and the leakage currents adjust the DC gradient to a nice even distribution between layers.
I used to buy huge oil caps when I was a kid, to pop flashtubes or
just make loud noises. I'd run them at all the voltage I could make,
like 25 KV.
The fluid used to fill them was a nasty halogenated hydrocarbon. It got phased out decades ago on health grounds.
Sulphur hexafloride is even better at damping out arc discharges, but it is remarkably potent greenhouse gas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur_hexafluoride
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10qm4pe$1832s$1@dont-email.me...
On 3/04/2026 2:05 am, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 2 Apr 2026 14:54:36 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 2/04/2026 3:35 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10qjddp$ad1m$2@dont-email.me...
On 1/04/2026 7:10 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 1 Apr 2026 15:36:25 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 1/04/2026 11:34 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10qfl5l$326de$1@dont-email.me...
On 31/03/2026 2:09 am, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 30 Mar 2026 14:47:41 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 30/03/2026 3:10 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10q7ltu$atug$1@dont-email.me...
On 28/03/2026 5:43 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sat, 28 Mar 2026 01:55:01 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 27/03/2026 10:24 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 27 Mar 2026 15:19:29 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 27/03/2026 1:48 am, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 27 Mar 2026 01:25:09 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 8:48 pm, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 16:51:54 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 6:38 am, Phil Hobbs wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-03-25 12:17, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 01:28:35 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 1:10 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/25/2026 04:21 AM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25/03/2026 6:14 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/24/2026 09:21 PM, Don Y wrote:
<snip>
Told ya so.
You didn't.
Yes he did.
In your ever-so-expert opinion.
You made a bald claim unsupported by any evidence.
LOL
Edward Rawde is easily amused.
That makes life more enjoyable. Are you ever amused? Certainly not
here.
Eb Major has three flats.
I can find evidence if you want but I don't provide evidence for every >>>>> statement I make because others can either find out for themselves or they
may already know.
John Larkin made vague and unsupported claims about aluminium and zinc >>>> metallisation in plastic film capacitors. He did - more or less
accidentally - came up with a link to more specific information, but he >>>> didn't highlight the link in any way or indicate what the specific
information meant.
I said that film caps do not use single-atom thick metalization, and
that some use combined aluminum and zinc metalization. I learned those
in a few minutes of web searching.
It is perfectly true that any of us might have come up with that forourselves if we had looked hard enough, but in this particular instance >>>> he didn't look very hard. He rarely does.
It wasn't hard to find facts about metalization. The mystery is why
you couldn't.
I certainly could have done, but you'd made the claim - why should I bother?
Er, because you disputed the claim. And got it wrong.
On 3/04/2026 11:51 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10qm4pe$1832s$1@dont-email.me...
On 3/04/2026 2:05 am, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 2 Apr 2026 14:54:36 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 2/04/2026 3:35 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10qjddp$ad1m$2@dont-email.me...
On 1/04/2026 7:10 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 1 Apr 2026 15:36:25 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 1/04/2026 11:34 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10qfl5l$326de$1@dont-email.me...
On 31/03/2026 2:09 am, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 30 Mar 2026 14:47:41 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 30/03/2026 3:10 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10q7ltu$atug$1@dont-email.me...
On 28/03/2026 5:43 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sat, 28 Mar 2026 01:55:01 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 27/03/2026 10:24 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 27 Mar 2026 15:19:29 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 27/03/2026 1:48 am, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 27 Mar 2026 01:25:09 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 8:48 pm, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 16:51:54 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 6:38 am, Phil Hobbs wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-03-25 12:17, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 01:28:35 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 1:10 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/25/2026 04:21 AM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25/03/2026 6:14 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/24/2026 09:21 PM, Don Y wrote:
<snip>
Told ya so.
You didn't.
Yes he did.
In your ever-so-expert opinion.
You made a bald claim unsupported by any evidence.
LOL
Edward Rawde is easily amused.
That makes life more enjoyable. Are you ever amused? Certainly not
here.
Eb Major has three flats.
I can find evidence if you want but I don't provide evidence for every >>>>>> statement I make because others can either find out for themselves or they
may already know.
John Larkin made vague and unsupported claims about aluminium and zinc >>>>> metallisation in plastic film capacitors. He did - more or less
accidentally - came up with a link to more specific information, but he >>>>> didn't highlight the link in any way or indicate what the specific
information meant.
I said that film caps do not use single-atom thick metalization, and
that some use combined aluminum and zinc metalization. I learned those >>>> in a few minutes of web searching.
It is perfectly true that any of us might have come up with that for >>>>> ourselves if we had looked hard enough, but in this particular instance >>>>> he didn't look very hard. He rarely does.
It wasn't hard to find facts about metalization. The mystery is why
you couldn't.
I certainly could have done, but you'd made the claim - why should I bother?
Er, because you disputed the claim. And got it wrong.
I didn't actually dispute the claim - I just said that I hadn't heard
that mixed zinc and aluminium metalisation was ever used.
After I'd dug into the pile of links that John Larkin had posted - >apparently without bothering to read any of them - I found one example
of mixed use - when a thin layer of aluminium metalisation was used to >provide better substrate for a slightly thicker layer of zinc.
It's not exactly mixed use - all the aluminium substrate does is provide
a firmer foundation for the zinc layer that does all the work.
I didn't "get it wrong" no matter how much you would like to see it that >way, but rather provoked an eventually more informative answer, not that >John Larkin contributed all that he might have done to the process.
On 3/04/2026 11:51 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10qm4pe$1832s$1@dont-email.me...
On 3/04/2026 2:05 am, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 2 Apr 2026 14:54:36 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 2/04/2026 3:35 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10qjddp$ad1m$2@dont-email.me...
On 1/04/2026 7:10 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 1 Apr 2026 15:36:25 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 1/04/2026 11:34 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10qfl5l$326de$1@dont-email.me...
On 31/03/2026 2:09 am, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 30 Mar 2026 14:47:41 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 30/03/2026 3:10 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10q7ltu$atug$1@dont-email.me...
On 28/03/2026 5:43 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sat, 28 Mar 2026 01:55:01 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 27/03/2026 10:24 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 27 Mar 2026 15:19:29 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 27/03/2026 1:48 am, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 27 Mar 2026 01:25:09 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 8:48 pm, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 16:51:54 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 6:38 am, Phil Hobbs wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-03-25 12:17, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 01:28:35 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 1:10 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/25/2026 04:21 AM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25/03/2026 6:14 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/24/2026 09:21 PM, Don Y wrote:
<snip>
Told ya so.
You didn't.
Yes he did.
In your ever-so-expert opinion.
You made a bald claim unsupported by any evidence.
LOL
Edward Rawde is easily amused.
That makes life more enjoyable. Are you ever amused? Certainly not
here.
Eb Major has three flats.
I can find evidence if you want but I don't provide evidence for every >>>>>> statement I make because others can either find out for themselves or they
may already know.
John Larkin made vague and unsupported claims about aluminium and zinc >>>>> metallisation in plastic film capacitors. He did - more or less
accidentally - came up with a link to more specific information, but he >>>>> didn't highlight the link in any way or indicate what the specific
information meant.
I said that film caps do not use single-atom thick metalization, and
that some use combined aluminum and zinc metalization. I learned those >>>> in a few minutes of web searching.
It is perfectly true that any of us might have come up with that for >>>>> ourselves if we had looked hard enough, but in this particular instance >>>>> he didn't look very hard. He rarely does.
It wasn't hard to find facts about metalization. The mystery is why
you couldn't.
I certainly could have done, but you'd made the claim - why should I bother?
Er, because you disputed the claim. And got it wrong.
I didn't actually dispute the claim - I just said that I hadn't heard that mixed zinc and aluminium metalisation was ever used.
After I'd dug into the pile of links that John Larkin had posted - apparently without bothering to read any of them - I found one
example of mixed use - when a thin layer of aluminium metalisation was used to provide better substrate for a slightly thicker
layer of zinc.
It's not exactly mixed use - all the aluminium substrate does is provide a firmer foundation for the zinc layer that does all the
work.
I didn't "get it wrong" no matter how much you would like to see it that way,
but rather provoked an eventually more informative answer, not that John Larkin contributed all that he might have done to the
process.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10qnj90$1mmha$1@dont-email.me...
On 3/04/2026 11:51 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10qm4pe$1832s$1@dont-email.me...
On 3/04/2026 2:05 am, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 2 Apr 2026 14:54:36 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>> wrote:
On 2/04/2026 3:35 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10qjddp$ad1m$2@dont-email.me...
On 1/04/2026 7:10 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 1 Apr 2026 15:36:25 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 1/04/2026 11:34 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10qfl5l$326de$1@dont-email.me...
On 31/03/2026 2:09 am, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 30 Mar 2026 14:47:41 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 30/03/2026 3:10 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10q7ltu$atug$1@dont-email.me...
On 28/03/2026 5:43 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sat, 28 Mar 2026 01:55:01 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 27/03/2026 10:24 pm, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 27 Mar 2026 15:19:29 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 27/03/2026 1:48 am, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 27 Mar 2026 01:25:09 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 8:48 pm, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 16:51:54 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 6:38 am, Phil Hobbs wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-03-25 12:17, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 01:28:35 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 1:10 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/25/2026 04:21 AM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25/03/2026 6:14 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/24/2026 09:21 PM, Don Y wrote:
I didn't "get it wrong" no matter how much you would like to see it that way,
Of course not Bill. It is clear that you can't be wrong. Even when you are.
but rather provoked an eventually more informative answer, not that John Larkin contributed all that he might have done to the
process.
On 4/04/2026 3:17 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10qnj90$1mmha$1@dont-email.me...
On 3/04/2026 11:51 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10qm4pe$1832s$1@dont-email.me...
On 3/04/2026 2:05 am, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 2 Apr 2026 14:54:36 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>> wrote:
On 2/04/2026 3:35 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10qjddp$ad1m$2@dont-email.me...
On 1/04/2026 7:10 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 1 Apr 2026 15:36:25 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 1/04/2026 11:34 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10qfl5l$326de$1@dont-email.me...
On 31/03/2026 2:09 am, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 30 Mar 2026 14:47:41 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 30/03/2026 3:10 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10q7ltu$atug$1@dont-email.me...
On 28/03/2026 5:43 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sat, 28 Mar 2026 01:55:01 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 27/03/2026 10:24 pm, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 27 Mar 2026 15:19:29 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 27/03/2026 1:48 am, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 27 Mar 2026 01:25:09 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 8:48 pm, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 16:51:54 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 6:38 am, Phil Hobbs wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-03-25 12:17, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 01:28:35 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 1:10 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/25/2026 04:21 AM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25/03/2026 6:14 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/24/2026 09:21 PM, Don Y wrote:
<snip>
I didn't "get it wrong" no matter how much you would like to see it that way,
Of course not Bill. It is clear that you can't be wrong. Even when you are.
I certainly didn't produce as good a response as John May has, much as I would have liked to, and to that extent I have got it
wrong. You haven't contributed anything useful at all. I suspect the pecking order goes John May, me, John Larkin and you, with
your "contribution" being entirely negative. You have done better in the past, but this wasn't one of your merely mediocre days.
but rather provoked an eventually more informative answer, not that John Larkin contributed all that he might have done to the
process.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10qovrh$44s8$2@dont-email.me...
On 4/04/2026 3:17 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10qnj90$1mmha$1@dont-email.me...
On 3/04/2026 11:51 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10qm4pe$1832s$1@dont-email.me...
On 3/04/2026 2:05 am, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 2 Apr 2026 14:54:36 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 2/04/2026 3:35 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10qjddp$ad1m$2@dont-email.me...
On 1/04/2026 7:10 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 1 Apr 2026 15:36:25 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 1/04/2026 11:34 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10qfl5l$326de$1@dont-email.me...
On 31/03/2026 2:09 am, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 30 Mar 2026 14:47:41 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 30/03/2026 3:10 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10q7ltu$atug$1@dont-email.me...
On 28/03/2026 5:43 am, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 28 Mar 2026 01:55:01 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 27/03/2026 10:24 pm, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 27 Mar 2026 15:19:29 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 27/03/2026 1:48 am, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 27 Mar 2026 01:25:09 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 8:48 pm, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 16:51:54 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 6:38 am, Phil Hobbs wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-03-25 12:17, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 01:28:35 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 1:10 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/25/2026 04:21 AM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25/03/2026 6:14 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/24/2026 09:21 PM, Don Y wrote:
<snip>
I certainly didn't produce as good a response as John May has, much as I would have liked to, and to that extent I have got itI didn't "get it wrong" no matter how much you would like to see it that way,
Of course not Bill. It is clear that you can't be wrong. Even when you are. >>
wrong. You haven't contributed anything useful at all. I suspect the pecking order goes John May, me, John Larkin and you, with
your "contribution" being entirely negative. You have done better in the past, but this wasn't one of your merely mediocre days.
Thank you Headmaster. I'll try to do better next time.
You clearly have a desperate need to compare yourself with others Bill.
And a desperate need to be up there with those whom you perceive to be up there.
And a desperate need for respect, rather than criticism (direct or implied), from those whom you perceive to be up there ahead of
you.
And a desperate need to be disrespectful to those whom you perceive to be not as up there as you are.
As I see it, two interesting things drop out of this.
One is that those who really are up there don't seem to have these needs, but I don't speak for them.
The other is that you expect respect, not criticism, from those whom you perceive to be up there ahead of you.
And your head nearly explodes if they do make a post which implies that you might have been wrong.
But you show no respect to those whom you perceive to be not as up there as you are.
Here's a further contribution from myself.
I've no idea who got what from who or what its origin was but if I wanted to know anything about capacitors I'd start here:
https://www.nthuayu.cn/technology/introduction-to-capacitors-huayu/
And after a while I'd find myself here:
https://www.nthuayu.cn/technology/metallized-films/
Scroll down to metallized electrode.
I found that information while looking for information in addition to the information JM posted.
To find it I had to think outside the Google box.
but rather provoked an eventually more informative answer, not that John Larkin contributed all that he might have done to the
process.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10qovrh$44s8$2@dont-email.me...
On 4/04/2026 3:17 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10qnj90$1mmha$1@dont-email.me...
On 3/04/2026 11:51 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10qm4pe$1832s$1@dont-email.me...
On 3/04/2026 2:05 am, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 2 Apr 2026 14:54:36 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 2/04/2026 3:35 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10qjddp$ad1m$2@dont-email.me...
On 1/04/2026 7:10 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 1 Apr 2026 15:36:25 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 1/04/2026 11:34 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10qfl5l$326de$1@dont-email.me...
On 31/03/2026 2:09 am, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 30 Mar 2026 14:47:41 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 30/03/2026 3:10 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10q7ltu$atug$1@dont-email.me...
On 28/03/2026 5:43 am, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 28 Mar 2026 01:55:01 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 27/03/2026 10:24 pm, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 27 Mar 2026 15:19:29 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 27/03/2026 1:48 am, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 27 Mar 2026 01:25:09 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 8:48 pm, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 16:51:54 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 6:38 am, Phil Hobbs wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-03-25 12:17, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 01:28:35 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 1:10 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/25/2026 04:21 AM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25/03/2026 6:14 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/24/2026 09:21 PM, Don Y wrote:
<snip>
I certainly didn't produce as good a response as John May has, much as I would have liked to, and to that extent I have got itI didn't "get it wrong" no matter how much you would like to see it that way,
Of course not Bill. It is clear that you can't be wrong. Even when you are. >>
wrong. You haven't contributed anything useful at all. I suspect the pecking order goes John May, me, John Larkin and you, with
your "contribution" being entirely negative. You have done better in the past, but this wasn't one of your merely mediocre days.
Thank you Headmaster. I'll try to do better next time.
As I see it, two interesting things drop out of this.
One is that those who really are up there don't seem to have these needs, but I don't speak for them.
The other is that you expect respect, not criticism, from those whom you perceive to be up there ahead of you.
And your head nearly explodes if they do make a post which implies that you might have been wrong.
But you show no respect to those whom you perceive to be not as up there as you are.
Here's a further contribution from myself.
I've no idea who got what from who or what its origin was but if I wanted to know anything about capacitors I'd start here:
https://www.nthuayu.cn/technology/introduction-to-capacitors-huayu/
And after a while I'd find myself here:
https://www.nthuayu.cn/technology/metallized-films/
Scroll down to metallized electrode.
I found that information while looking for information in addition to the information JM posted.
To find it I had to think outside the Google box.
but rather provoked an eventually more informative answer, not that John Larkin contributed all that he might have done to the
process.
On Fri, 3 Apr 2026 19:16:45 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10qovrh$44s8$2@dont-email.me...
On 4/04/2026 3:17 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10qnj90$1mmha$1@dont-email.me...
On 3/04/2026 11:51 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10qm4pe$1832s$1@dont-email.me...
On 3/04/2026 2:05 am, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 2 Apr 2026 14:54:36 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 2/04/2026 3:35 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10qjddp$ad1m$2@dont-email.me...
On 1/04/2026 7:10 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 1 Apr 2026 15:36:25 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 1/04/2026 11:34 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10qfl5l$326de$1@dont-email.me...
On 31/03/2026 2:09 am, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 30 Mar 2026 14:47:41 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 30/03/2026 3:10 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10q7ltu$atug$1@dont-email.me...
On 28/03/2026 5:43 am, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 28 Mar 2026 01:55:01 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 27/03/2026 10:24 pm, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 27 Mar 2026 15:19:29 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 27/03/2026 1:48 am, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 27 Mar 2026 01:25:09 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 8:48 pm, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 16:51:54 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 6:38 am, Phil Hobbs wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-03-25 12:17, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 01:28:35 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 1:10 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/25/2026 04:21 AM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25/03/2026 6:14 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/24/2026 09:21 PM, Don Y wrote:
<snip>
I didn't "get it wrong" no matter how much you would like to see it that way,
Of course not Bill. It is clear that you can't be wrong. Even when you are.
I certainly didn't produce as good a response as John May has, much as I would have liked to, and to that extent I have got it
wrong. You haven't contributed anything useful at all. I suspect the pecking order goes John May, me, John Larkin and you, with
your "contribution" being entirely negative. You have done better in the past, but this wasn't one of your merely mediocre days.
Thank you Headmaster. I'll try to do better next time.
You have been told that you are stupid. Say three Hail Billies and
confess your sins and try to be better in the future.
On 4/04/2026 10:30 am, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 3 Apr 2026 19:16:45 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10qovrh$44s8$2@dont-email.me...
On 4/04/2026 3:17 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10qnj90$1mmha$1@dont-email.me...
On 3/04/2026 11:51 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10qm4pe$1832s$1@dont-email.me...
On 3/04/2026 2:05 am, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 2 Apr 2026 14:54:36 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 2/04/2026 3:35 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10qjddp$ad1m$2@dont-email.me...
On 1/04/2026 7:10 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 1 Apr 2026 15:36:25 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 1/04/2026 11:34 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10qfl5l$326de$1@dont-email.me...
On 31/03/2026 2:09 am, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 30 Mar 2026 14:47:41 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 30/03/2026 3:10 am, Edward Rawde wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10q7ltu$atug$1@dont-email.me...
On 28/03/2026 5:43 am, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 28 Mar 2026 01:55:01 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 27/03/2026 10:24 pm, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 27 Mar 2026 15:19:29 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 27/03/2026 1:48 am, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 27 Mar 2026 01:25:09 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 8:48 pm, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 16:51:54 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 6:38 am, Phil Hobbs wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-03-25 12:17, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 01:28:35 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 1:10 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/25/2026 04:21 AM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25/03/2026 6:14 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/24/2026 09:21 PM, Don Y wrote:
<snip>
I didn't "get it wrong" no matter how much you would like to see it that way,
Of course not Bill. It is clear that you can't be wrong. Even when you are.
I certainly didn't produce as good a response as John May has, much as I would have liked to, and to that extent I have got it
wrong. You haven't contributed anything useful at all. I suspect the pecking order goes John May, me, John Larkin and you, with
your "contribution" being entirely negative. You have done better in the past, but this wasn't one of your merely mediocre
days.
Thank you Headmaster. I'll try to do better next time.
You have been told that you are stupid. Say three Hail Billies and
confess your sins and try to be better in the future.
Edward Rawde isn't stupid. He's not clever, but he does come up with good ideas from time to time. The thread on very low
distortion sine wave oscillators come to mind - John May did improve on his improvement by chopping out several transistors, and I
managed to improve a little on John May's improved circuit by plugging in an extra transistor and going for a bit more bias
current. It was very much a joint effort, though Edward doesn't seem to see it that way.
He certainly isn't any kind of sinner, if less collegial than he might be. He does share that defect with you.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
On 4/04/2026 10:16 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10qovrh$44s8$2@dont-email.me...
On 4/04/2026 3:17 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10qnj90$1mmha$1@dont-email.me...
On 3/04/2026 11:51 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10qm4pe$1832s$1@dont-email.me...
On 3/04/2026 2:05 am, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 2 Apr 2026 14:54:36 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 2/04/2026 3:35 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10qjddp$ad1m$2@dont-email.me...
On 1/04/2026 7:10 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 1 Apr 2026 15:36:25 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 1/04/2026 11:34 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10qfl5l$326de$1@dont-email.me...
On 31/03/2026 2:09 am, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 30 Mar 2026 14:47:41 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 30/03/2026 3:10 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10q7ltu$atug$1@dont-email.me...
On 28/03/2026 5:43 am, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 28 Mar 2026 01:55:01 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 27/03/2026 10:24 pm, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 27 Mar 2026 15:19:29 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 27/03/2026 1:48 am, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 27 Mar 2026 01:25:09 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 8:48 pm, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 16:51:54 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 6:38 am, Phil Hobbs wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-03-25 12:17, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 01:28:35 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 1:10 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/25/2026 04:21 AM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25/03/2026 6:14 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/24/2026 09:21 PM, Don Y wrote:
<snip>
I didn't "get it wrong" no matter how much you would like to see it that way,
Of course not Bill. It is clear that you can't be wrong. Even when you are.
I certainly didn't produce as good a response as John May has, much as I would have liked to, and to that extent I have got it
wrong. You haven't contributed anything useful at all. I suspect the pecking order goes John May, me, John Larkin and you, with
your "contribution" being entirely negative. You have done better in the past, but this wasn't one of your merely mediocre days.
Thank you Headmaster. I'll try to do better next time.
<snipped the amateur psychology>
As I see it, two interesting things drop out of this.
One is that those who really are up there don't seem to have these needs, but I don't speak for them.
The other is that you expect respect, not criticism, from those whom you perceive to be up there ahead of you.
That's kind of weird. I don't expect "respect" from anybody. Well-founded criticism is useful, and I do pay attention to it.
And your head nearly explodes if they do make a post which implies that you might have been wrong.
But you show no respect to those whom you perceive to be not as up there as you are.
I don't like being told that I was wrong when I what I posted was less wrong than the post I was responding too, and I'm even less
enthusiastic about people who do it without posting a shred of justification for the claim.
Here's a further contribution from myself.
I've no idea who got what from who or what its origin was but if I wanted to know anything about capacitors I'd start here:
https://www.nthuayu.cn/technology/introduction-to-capacitors-huayu/
You should know where it came from Company Name: Nantong Huayu Electronic Co., Ltd. founded in 1987 in China
And after a while I'd find myself here:
https://www.nthuayu.cn/technology/metallized-films/
Scroll down to metallized electrode.
I found that information while looking for information in addition to the information JM posted.
To find it I had to think outside the Google box.
It pretty much duplicates the information in the link that John May posted, and was presumably derived from the same source. I'd
suspect Mullard from the style - their application data was never as technical as the stuff that came from Siemens, and less well
grounded in the fundamental physics.
What's missing is any indication that the metalisation goes down in isolated islands which have to be bridged to adjacent islands
by at least two bridges that have to be at least a single atom thick - since the metalisation seems to go down as multi-atom
crystalites the bridges aren't likely to be single atoms. Expressing that in an easily comprehensible form for people who don't
like thinking about single atoms isn't all that easy.
but rather provoked an eventually more informative answer, not that John Larkin contributed all that he might have done to the
process.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10qq94e$eqsg$1@dont-email.me...
On 4/04/2026 10:16 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10qovrh$44s8$2@dont-email.me...
On 4/04/2026 3:17 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10qnj90$1mmha$1@dont-email.me...
On 3/04/2026 11:51 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10qm4pe$1832s$1@dont-email.me...
On 3/04/2026 2:05 am, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 2 Apr 2026 14:54:36 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 2/04/2026 3:35 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10qjddp$ad1m$2@dont-email.me...
On 1/04/2026 7:10 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 1 Apr 2026 15:36:25 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 1/04/2026 11:34 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10qfl5l$326de$1@dont-email.me...
On 31/03/2026 2:09 am, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 30 Mar 2026 14:47:41 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 30/03/2026 3:10 am, Edward Rawde wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10q7ltu$atug$1@dont-email.me...
On 28/03/2026 5:43 am, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 28 Mar 2026 01:55:01 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 27/03/2026 10:24 pm, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 27 Mar 2026 15:19:29 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 27/03/2026 1:48 am, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 27 Mar 2026 01:25:09 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 8:48 pm, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 16:51:54 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 6:38 am, Phil Hobbs wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-03-25 12:17, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 01:28:35 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 1:10 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/25/2026 04:21 AM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25/03/2026 6:14 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/24/2026 09:21 PM, Don Y wrote:
Here's a further contribution from myself.
I've no idea who got what from who or what its origin was but if I wanted to know anything about capacitors I'd start here:
https://www.nthuayu.cn/technology/introduction-to-capacitors-huayu/
You should know where it came from Company Name: Nantong Huayu Electronic Co., Ltd. founded in 1987 in China
I can assure you that I'm able to copy/paste from a web site Bill.
You missed the point, which was that I was curious how the information JM posted can also be found word for word (less the page, figure and table numbers)
on a Chinese web site. The spelling of aluminium is also interesting.
On 5/04/2026 2:35 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10qq94e$eqsg$1@dont-email.me...
On 4/04/2026 10:16 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10qovrh$44s8$2@dont-email.me...
On 4/04/2026 3:17 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10qnj90$1mmha$1@dont-email.me...
On 3/04/2026 11:51 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10qm4pe$1832s$1@dont-email.me...
On 3/04/2026 2:05 am, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 2 Apr 2026 14:54:36 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 2/04/2026 3:35 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10qjddp$ad1m$2@dont-email.me...
On 1/04/2026 7:10 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 1 Apr 2026 15:36:25 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 1/04/2026 11:34 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10qfl5l$326de$1@dont-email.me...
On 31/03/2026 2:09 am, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 30 Mar 2026 14:47:41 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 30/03/2026 3:10 am, Edward Rawde wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10q7ltu$atug$1@dont-email.me...
On 28/03/2026 5:43 am, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 28 Mar 2026 01:55:01 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 27/03/2026 10:24 pm, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 27 Mar 2026 15:19:29 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 27/03/2026 1:48 am, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 27 Mar 2026 01:25:09 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 8:48 pm, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 16:51:54 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 6:38 am, Phil Hobbs wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-03-25 12:17, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 01:28:35 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 1:10 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/25/2026 04:21 AM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25/03/2026 6:14 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/24/2026 09:21 PM, Don Y wrote:
<snip>
Here's a further contribution from myself.
I've no idea who got what from who or what its origin was but if I wanted to know anything about capacitors I'd start here:
https://www.nthuayu.cn/technology/introduction-to-capacitors-huayu/
You should know where it came from Company Name: Nantong Huayu Electronic Co., Ltd. founded in 1987 in China
I can assure you that I'm able to copy/paste from a web site Bill.
You missed the point, which was that I was curious how the information JM
posted can also be found word for word (less the page, figure and table numbers)
on a Chinese web site. The spelling of aluminium is also interesting.
But that isn't what you posted. and you clearly hadn't read the whole of my post when you posted that comment. I made the same
point about the information matching John May's document, and speculated that it orginaly came from Mullard, a British firm, if
eventually taken over by Philips, who would have used the European spelling of alumimium, rather than the American "aluminum".
<snip>
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10qsiqj$14ghd$2@dont-email.me...
On 5/04/2026 2:35 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10qq94e$eqsg$1@dont-email.me...
On 4/04/2026 10:16 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10qovrh$44s8$2@dont-email.me...
On 4/04/2026 3:17 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10qnj90$1mmha$1@dont-email.me...
On 3/04/2026 11:51 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10qm4pe$1832s$1@dont-email.me...
On 3/04/2026 2:05 am, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 2 Apr 2026 14:54:36 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 2/04/2026 3:35 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10qjddp$ad1m$2@dont-email.me...
On 1/04/2026 7:10 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 1 Apr 2026 15:36:25 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 1/04/2026 11:34 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10qfl5l$326de$1@dont-email.me...
On 31/03/2026 2:09 am, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 30 Mar 2026 14:47:41 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 30/03/2026 3:10 am, Edward Rawde wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10q7ltu$atug$1@dont-email.me...
On 28/03/2026 5:43 am, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 28 Mar 2026 01:55:01 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 27/03/2026 10:24 pm, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 27 Mar 2026 15:19:29 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 27/03/2026 1:48 am, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 27 Mar 2026 01:25:09 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 8:48 pm, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 16:51:54 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 6:38 am, Phil Hobbs wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-03-25 12:17, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 01:28:35 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 1:10 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/25/2026 04:21 AM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25/03/2026 6:14 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 03/24/2026 09:21 PM, Don Y wrote:
LOL How do you think I determined that the information JM posted matched
that web site Bill?
On 5/04/2026 2:29 pm, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10qsiqj$14ghd$2@dont-email.me...
On 5/04/2026 2:35 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10qq94e$eqsg$1@dont-email.me...
On 4/04/2026 10:16 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10qovrh$44s8$2@dont-email.me...
On 4/04/2026 3:17 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10qnj90$1mmha$1@dont-email.me...
On 3/04/2026 11:51 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10qm4pe$1832s$1@dont-email.me...
On 3/04/2026 2:05 am, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 2 Apr 2026 14:54:36 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 2/04/2026 3:35 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10qjddp$ad1m$2@dont-email.me...
On 1/04/2026 7:10 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 1 Apr 2026 15:36:25 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 1/04/2026 11:34 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10qfl5l$326de$1@dont-email.me...
On 31/03/2026 2:09 am, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 30 Mar 2026 14:47:41 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 30/03/2026 3:10 am, Edward Rawde wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10q7ltu$atug$1@dont-email.me...
On 28/03/2026 5:43 am, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 28 Mar 2026 01:55:01 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 27/03/2026 10:24 pm, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 27 Mar 2026 15:19:29 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 27/03/2026 1:48 am, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 27 Mar 2026 01:25:09 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 8:48 pm, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 16:51:54 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 6:38 am, Phil Hobbs wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-03-25 12:17, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 01:28:35 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 1:10 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/25/2026 04:21 AM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25/03/2026 6:14 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 03/24/2026 09:21 PM, Don Y wrote:
<snip>
LOL How do you think I determined that the information JM posted matched
that web site Bill?
Who cares? "Determined " is a pretentious choice of word. There are lots of ways you could have done it, and you haven't specified
which one you chose. I thought that the content pretty much matched the content of John May's document, but I didn't test it
explicitly, and certainly didn't "determine" anything.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10qssvp$178t2$1@dont-email.me...
On 5/04/2026 2:29 pm, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10qsiqj$14ghd$2@dont-email.me...
On 5/04/2026 2:35 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10qq94e$eqsg$1@dont-email.me...
On 4/04/2026 10:16 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10qovrh$44s8$2@dont-email.me...
On 4/04/2026 3:17 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10qnj90$1mmha$1@dont-email.me...
On 3/04/2026 11:51 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10qm4pe$1832s$1@dont-email.me...
On 3/04/2026 2:05 am, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 2 Apr 2026 14:54:36 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 2/04/2026 3:35 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10qjddp$ad1m$2@dont-email.me...
On 1/04/2026 7:10 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 1 Apr 2026 15:36:25 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 1/04/2026 11:34 am, Edward Rawde wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10qfl5l$326de$1@dont-email.me...
On 31/03/2026 2:09 am, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 30 Mar 2026 14:47:41 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 30/03/2026 3:10 am, Edward Rawde wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:10q7ltu$atug$1@dont-email.me...
On 28/03/2026 5:43 am, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 28 Mar 2026 01:55:01 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 27/03/2026 10:24 pm, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 27 Mar 2026 15:19:29 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 27/03/2026 1:48 am, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 27 Mar 2026 01:25:09 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 8:48 pm, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 16:51:54 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 6:38 am, Phil Hobbs wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-03-25 12:17, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 01:28:35 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 26/03/2026 1:10 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 03/25/2026 04:21 AM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25/03/2026 6:14 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 03/24/2026 09:21 PM, Don Y wrote:
<snip>
LOL How do you think I determined that the information JM posted matched >>> that web site Bill?
Who cares? "Determined " is a pretentious choice of word. There are lots of ways you could have done it, and you haven't specified
which one you chose. I thought that the content pretty much matched the content of John May's document, but I didn't test it
explicitly, and certainly didn't "determine" anything.
Oh it certainly matches, but whether or not it has anything to do with Philips is unknown.
I don't know exactly when Philips stopped making capacitors but it was a long time ago
and you might find it hard to get anything new which wasn't made in China these days.
| Sysop: | Jacob Catayoc |
|---|---|
| Location: | Pasay City, Metro Manila, Philippines |
| Users: | 6 |
| Nodes: | 4 (0 / 4) |
| Uptime: | 493396:30:50 |
| Calls: | 141 |
| Files: | 538 |
| Messages: | 76,283 |