[Hallicrafters] Re: The Law of Smoke

[Ken Kaplan]

Duane,

That interval of time is called an onosecond (long o as in Oh No!). It is also defined as 
the interval of time between flipping a switch or pushing a button and the realization that 
it was an irreversibly bad move.

As for The Law of Smoke, I've also done some work in this area. I submit for peer review 
the following "refinement" on Jim's law:

The Law of Smoke:  S = kPuT

Where:
S = smoke expressed in cubic feet per minute
P = power dissipated in watts
T = time since the component was installed, in seconds
k = the coefficient of the medium involved in cfm/watt-seconds
u = the unobtanium coefficient

As we can see, the more difficult it is to obtain a replacement the more smoke.

I am working on a Law of Tears (also know as the Smoke Gets in your Eyes Law) that 
states:

Te = Ti(S^2)

Where:
Te = tears in grams
Ti = time smoke is produced in seconds
S = smoke expressed in cubic feet per minute

More work is needed in this area.

PHASER = Peripheral Heat Absorption from Smoke Emission in Radio

Sorry - I just couldn't stop myself...
73 Ken kb7rgg

> Jim, 	
>
> LASER = Light Amplification through Stimulated Emission of Radiation	
>
> MASER = Microwave Amplification through Stimulated Emission of Radiation 	
>
> PHASER = What?	
>
> Sorry, but Tripp's Law already exists James. it is concerned with the frequency
> in time that a given subject can swear from the moment when he trips, until he
> impacts the floor. 	
>
>
> ----------
> From: Jim Tripp <wa6dij at redshift.com>
> To: Rich.Oliver at lowell.edu
> Cc: hallicrafters at mailman.qth.net
> Subject: [Hallicrafters] The Law of Smoke
> Date: Thursday, September 15, 2005 4:16 PM
>
>
> After reading Rich's "observations" (below), I have spent much time
> dwelling on the behavior of smoke. As a result of this I have
> postulated a formula governing "The Law of Smoke" and I think it
> should be taught right along with Ohms Law, Kirkoff's Laws, etc.  I am
> amazed it has been neglected this long.  Hopefully this formula will
> allow us to study this phenomena in much greater detail in the future.
>
> I suggest the following formula:
>
> The Law of Smoke:  S = kP x T
>
> Where:
> S = smoke expressed in cubic feet per minute P = power dissipated in
> watts T = time since the component was installed, in seconds.
> k = the coefficient of the medium involved in cfm/watt-seconds
>
> We can see from this formula that the longer a component has been
> installed the more likely it is to expel smoke. Equivalently, the more
> power the unit dissipates then its greater propensity to expel smoke.
>
> Our only saving grace is the factor "k". We are obligated to select
> components with the smallest k-factor possible.  For example, glass
> has a very small k-factor and is highly unlikely to emit smoke.
> However, paper has a very high k-factor and is almost sure to emit
> smoke given an adequate amount of power and time.
>
> Now that we have this formula, it is our obligation to determine if
> "S" is greater in a Hallicrafters then it is in a Collins. 
>
> I think it has empirically been proven that radios with a large number
> of paper capacitors emit smoke more frequently then those that have
> had their paper caps replaced with Mylar capacitors.
>
> I would like to express my sincere thanks to my colleague, Rich
> Oliver, for his invaluable research in this area.
>
> QED
>
> Jim/wa6dij, Professor at Large, Department of Science Nonsense.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rich Oliver [mailto:Rich.Oliver at lowell.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 12:39 PM
> To: Jim Tripp
> Cc: hallicrafters at mailman.qth.net
> Subject: Re: [Hallicrafters] daffynitions
>
> Jim,
>
> One fact that is often overlooked is that all electronic devices run
> on smoke.  When you let the smoke out they stop working.  Reloading
> smoke into dead devices is generally beyond our capabilities (except
> Gary Brown?) so we usually settle for replacement parts with a full
> charge of smoke.  "Black Beauties", carbon comp resistors and such are
> slightly porous so the smoke leaks out slowly over time, then the last
> bit of smoke comes out all at once.  Tubes are trickier because the
> smoke stays inside the glass envelope and you have to open the
> envelope to check for smoke.  I have checked all my tubes and I'm
> happy to report that no smoke leaked out of any of them - now I just
> need stuff the vacuum back in and put them back together.  Gary - need
> some help here!
>
> Most electronics text books just gloss over the critical role of smoke
> if they mention it at all.  It is also generally ignored in school
> courses even though the astute student will nearly always encounter it
> in electronics labs.  For some reason the instructors just sit back
> and allow the student to make the connection by himself.
>
> *COUGH*
>
> Cheers, Rich