On Mar 14, 4:26*am, ehsjr wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 13, 7:00 pm, ehsjr wrote:

wrote:

On Mar 12, 5:39 pm, John Fields wrote:

On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 07:43:19 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Mar 11, 3:34 pm, John Fields wrote:

On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 07:57:49 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Mar 10, 10:59 am, John Fields
wrote:

On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 16:57:49 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

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?

---
Who cares?

We're talking process, not logistics.

Actually, we are talking about being helpful,

---
No, we're not.

Being helpful doesn't seem to figure in your priorities,

I guess you were sleeping through the hundreds and hundreds,
maybe *thousands* of helpful posts from JF over the years.

Many of them would have been more helpful

By specifying that they could have been _more_ helpful,
you are specifying that they *were* helpful, *proving that
your attempted implication that he was not helpful is
bull****. *And your attempted denegration of him in the
remainder of your post is just pathetic. *The picture
you paint - of yourself - is not pretty.

Back to the remedial English classes.

"Many of them would have been more helpful if he were a better
electronic engineer"

is pure sarcasm - the implication is that they were decidedly
unhelpful, mostly by concentrating the readers attention on childish
tricks one can play with the 555, which isn't quite as universally
applicable now as it was in it's glory days back in the early 1970's.
Technology has moved on since then, even if John Fields hasn't.

Being nasty about John Fields is my reaction to him being nasty about
me - I respond to politeness with politeness, and to rudeness with
rudeness.

In principle I ought to end with some kind of disparaging comment
about you, but your 1083 posting here are so uniformly undistinguished
that there is really nothing to disparage.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen