On Mar 10, 10:59*am, John Fields
wrote:
On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 16:57:49 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
On Mar 9, 5:51*pm, legg wrote:
On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 08:39:58 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
LOL, hook, line, and sinker! :

http://www.vcomp.co.uk/tech_tips/ref...eform_caps.htm

If you weren't another uninformed idiot, you'd realise that the
proposition is at least potentionaly rational, even though Michael
Terrell is the source. It would be a daft thing to do, but could work,
after a fashion.

Have you not been paying attention to what is happening here recently?

Michael Terrell was *not* the source!

Ouch. I had noticed that someone was producing posts that purported to
come from him, but they were fairly obviously false. I should have
paid more attention to the signature.

I plead jet-lag. I got off the plane from Australia on Tuesday, so
I've been thinking that I ought to be okay by now, but I'm obviously
not thinking straight yet.

Never mind.

I believe the reforming process is intended to restore voltage
handling capability of the part. It won't alter the part's
capacitance.

The process is also covered by the old MIL-HDBK-1131.

Since "restoring voltage handling capability" means thickening up the
oxide layer, it probably will decrease the part's capacitance,
bringing it back towards the as-new value. The tolerance on most
electrolytic capacitors is pretty high, so it might be hard to prove.

---
You certainly don't seem to be thinking straight since, regardless
of the tolerance, measuring the capacitance before, and then after
reforming would certainly indicate if the process had changed the
capacitance.

Sure it would, but how many people have a capacitor handy that needs
reforming?

If you could measure the capacitance before and after reforming - at
much the same temperature - you might be in with a chance, but
electrolytic capacitors are cranky beasts at the best of times.

Checking the capacitance of a capacitor that you reformed a couple of
years ago isn't going to tell you much.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen