[ARC5] those Chinese caps

Mon Dec 3 11:46:00 EST 2012

Yeah..you get what you pay for and sometimes not even..two of those 25cents 
yellow 0.1s in my recapping my NC-183..rated at 630v shorted out at 175 
volts and the next one did the very same..a $1 orange drop solved the 
problem..I am now reduced to checking those yellow bellys for a short 
circuit before installing them and I've stopped buying them of course unless 
they are made in the good ol'USA..the high voltage electros I have been 
lucky with so far but I am bit nervous of them especially in the old 
Heathkit DXs where the surge can be pretty much over the rating.. 73 de 
Pat/EI7CN
-----Original Message----- 
From: arc5-request at mailman.qth.net
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2012 3:49 PM
To: arc5 at mailman.qth.net
Subject: ARC5 Digest, Vol 107, Issue 20

Send ARC5 mailing list submissions to
arc5 at mailman.qth.net

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/arc5
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
arc5-request at mailman.qth.net

You can reach the person managing the list at
arc5-owner at mailman.qth.net

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of ARC5 digest..."

Today's Topics:

   1. When Them Chinese Caps Say "400VDC" (David Stinson)
   2. Re: partial documents... (gordon white)
   3. Re: [Vintage-Military-RADAR] Re: [MRCA] AN/PRC-74 Schematics
      (J. Forster)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2012 06:59:35 -0600
From: "David Stinson" <arc5 at ix.netcom.com>
To: <milsurplus at mailman.qth.net>, "ARC-5 List" <arc5 at mailman.qth.net>
Subject: [ARC5] When Them Chinese Caps Say "400VDC"
Message-ID: <D6F0DB29F80949FF94A478AE619ABDCC at CompaqSR5710F>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original

When Them Chinese Caps Say "400VDC"...
They don't mean 410!  ;-)

http://home.netcom.com/~arc5/AVRAVT/boom.jpg

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2012 08:28:34 -0500
From: gordon white <gewhite at crosslink.net>
To: Richard Hankins <g7rvi at richard-hankins.org.uk>
Cc: Vintage-Military-RADAR at yahoogroups.com,
ArmyRadios at yahoogroups.com, "ARC5 at mailman.QTH.net"
<arc5 at mailman.QTH.net>, VMARS Mail List <vmars at yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [ARC5] partial documents...
Message-ID: <50BCA902.8070601 at crosslink.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

I already had that problem in a slightly different way. I am the
historian of Christ Church Parish, founded in 1642. Many church records
were preserved, beginning in 1665, but in the period between the
Revolution and 1843, a lot were lost. The church historian in 1950 found
some of the previously lost records and had them inserted as pages in
one of the reprinted church vestry books at the Urbanna, Virginia,
library. Seemed like a safe place. But later there was another reprint
done, the Library discarded the first one, with the inserted pages, and
they were lost again.
  - Gordon White

------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2012 07:47:37 -0800 (PST)
From: "J. Forster" <jfor at quikus.com>
To: Vintage-Military-RADAR at yahoogroups.com
Cc: "ARC5 at mailman.QTH.net" <arc5 at mailman.qth.net>,
armyradios at yahoogroups.com, VMARS Mail List <vmars at yahoogroups.com>,
Milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [ARC5] [Vintage-Military-RADAR] Re: [MRCA] AN/PRC-74
Schematics
Message-ID:
<1142.12.6.201.220.1354549657.squirrel at popaccts.quikus.com>
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1

What can I say? I agree.

Scanning and then encrypting public documents is NOT 'a good thing' IMO.
Both BAMA and the VMARS Manuals site make them available freely, no
strings attached.

-John

============

> John,
>
> I agree with you that Google's treatment of these documents creates a
> problem.   It will pan out just as you describe - with vital information
> being lost (unless action is taken).
>
> The question for us all is - what to do about it?
>
> Clearly Google's copies cannot be relied on.   And Google appears to be
> impervious to any sort of appeals to deal with the problem.   As soon as
> they take a partial copy, the document is then "in danger".   At least
> it is, if they literally have the _only_ (partial) copy.
>
> I suggest the following actions by the "vintage electronics community"
> are needed to ensure that we lose as little as possible:
>
> /
> 1.  Make sure our copies are complete./
>
> I know the large pages are a pain for those scanning with A4/US Letter
> size scanners - however do your best to capture it all, since expert
> treatment can digitally piece together the separate bits of the diagram.
>
> /
> 2.   Provide free access to all responsible researchers/users/restorers
> so that they hold their own copies//, and we have as much material
> distributed around the world as possible./
>
> One threat to the material is all the usual hazards - hardware failure
> (HDD going down, etc), fire, earthquake, theft, and lack of care in
> general.   The only safeguard against these threats is to get as many
> copies as possible in as many hands as possible around the world.
>
> Some groups (e.g. the "WS19 group")  believe in putting draconian
> restrictions on access to documents.   But in the long term, their
> actions are similar to Google's.    Contributors think the stuff is safe
> with groups like the WS19 one - but is it?   We really have no idea.
> All we know is that getting accessible copies out of them is nigh on
> impossible. (I don't count files encrypted with near unbreakable
> passwords as "accessible").  If the password is ever lost to a file -
> then that file becomes useless.
>
> An example of how allowing (or at least not preventing) copies to be
> taken are old audio recordings that are now being recovered by the
> BBC.   The BBC itself had long scrubbed old recordings of many programs
> now regarded as all-time "classics".    Copies are turning up in
> people's lofts and being made available to everyone.   No - its not an
> ideal way to ensure things survive - but life is unpredictable, and this
> works to a degree.
>
> The BAMA site is a good example of how to do this.  I got the vmars
> archive working along the same lines about 10 years ago, where stuff is
> freely given away.
>
>
> /3.  Try and get everyone to realise that sharing stuff is ultimately
> better for everyone - including the sharer.
>
> /In the UK, it has become socially unacceptable to drink and drive.
> People who think it OK to horde rare items that should be part of our
> common heritage, and refuse to allow access by anyone else, need to be
> regarded in the same way.  The problem isn't restricted to sharing old
> electronic manuals - you will find the archeological world has it in
> bucket loads.
>
>
> /4. //We, collectively, need to keep an eye on what Google is scanning
> in our own field.   If they ever scan something not widely available
> elsewhere, we need to take steps to get a full copy asap./
>
> The PRC-74 manual that started this thread is not under much threat as
> far as I know.   But there is some WWII era (and earlier) material that
> is.
>
> I am not sure how this would be done practically.  Chances are that
> Google doesn't publish a list of all the stuff it has scanned.   Someone
> on here may know more.
>
>
> Richard
> G7RVI
>
> On 01/12/2012 19:40, J. Forster wrote:
>>
>> Nick,
>>
>> I'm not saying Google is not doing a service by scanning a lot of stuff.
>> I
>> like their patents a lot.
>>
>> BUT, my concern is long term. I grew up in the era before Xerox and
>> scanners technical information was hard to get. If you were really
>> lucky,
>> you got a poor copy of a schemat for a unit. Mostly you got nothing.
>>
>> Yes, there were a very few books, but they had little but schemats and
>> "conversion" information.
>>
>> I don't care immediately that Google's scans don't have oversized
>> prints,
>> but, in the future when the HC gets even rarer than it is now, the loss
>> will be irretrievable.
>>
>> Already, there are sets whose doc is essentially mythical. I have two
>> such
>> at least.
>>
>> It's almost the same argument as preserving the diversity of critters
>> and
>> plants worldwide.
>>
>> The custodians of documents will just remember that 'Google scanned our
>> library', so we can toss out all the dusty manuals to make room for the
>> latest romance novel or Time magazine. They will not remember that the
>> prints were not scanned.
>>
>> That's the crux of the argument. Google, by scanning it incompletely, is
>> hastening the very loss of information they are seeking to preserve.
>>
>> YMMV,
>>
>> -John
>>
>> =============
>>
>> > Well, you guys should definitely ask for your money back! Oh
>> wait.......
>> >
>> > Me, I'm grateful to Google for the several million pages they've
>> given us
>> > for free that are quite useful and readable. Ok they aren't perfect
>> and
>> > are missing some of my favorite govt pubs but it sure is worth at
>> least
>> > what they charge.
>> > Cheers
>> > Nick
>> >
>> >
>> > On Dec 1, 2012, at 2:04 PM, "Kenneth G. Gordon"
>> <kgordon2006 at frontier.com <mailto:kgordon2006%40frontier.com>>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 29 Nov 2012 at 18:53, J. Forster wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> IMO, this Google program is run by complete cretins. And, it seems
>> >>> there is no way to contact Google.
>> >>
>> >> You are absolutely correct. I cannot believe the lousy quality of the
>> >> scans of
>> >> books we have found on Google: missing pages, duplicated pages,
>> >> off-square pages, folded edges, etc., ad nauseaum.
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>

------------------------------

_______________________________________________
ARC5 mailing list
ARC5 at mailman.qth.net
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/arc5

End of ARC5 Digest, Vol 107, Issue 20
************************************* 