The Cyber-Spy.Com Usenet Archive Feeds Directly
From The Open And Publicly Available Newsgroup
This Group And Thousands Of Others Are Available
On Most IS NNTP News Servers On Port 119.
Cyber-Spy.Com Is NOT Responsible For Any Topic,
Opinions Or Content Posted To This Or Any Other
Newsgroup. This Web Archive Of The Newsgroup And
Posts Are For Informational Purposes Only.
From: "Phil Allison"
References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <8npR9.16063$jM5.email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: Low leakage parts
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2003 14:23:53 +1100
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 05 Jan 2003 14:13:50 EST
Organization: Telstra BigPond Internet Services (http://www.bigpond.com)
"Winfield Hill" wrote in message
> Phil wrote...
> > Tom Bruhns wrote ...
> >> the roughly 0.1fA of leakage I'm seeing in 0.1uF polyprop caps
> >> at 10V suggests about 10^17 ohms effective shunt resistance,
> > ** The insulation resistance for some ( LCR brand)
> > polypropylene caps (if that is what you used) is quoted in the
> > Farnell cat as 1 x 10^11 ohms. For LCR polystyrene it is given
> > as 5 x 10^11 ohms.
> > Your suggested figure is some one million times better.
> > My doubts are reasonable.
> Phil, your doubt are NOT reasonable, quite the contrary.
** The figures I quote above *proves my point* - you should read my
post as a self defence and not an attack on Mr Bruhns claims.
Also read entire posts /thread so you can maybe see the purpose and
That's> because you Are doubting engineers who have far better
> skill, experience and equipment than yourself.
** That is just insane. You are so full of yourself, Win.
> In this thread you have been and are systematically doubting Tom's
> measurements and insights, while putting up weak irrelevant points
> to defend your doubts.
** Absolute bullshit. Tom (whom I do not know at all) put up ONE post
with NO details of his claim. Only today has he come back with any.
>> Tom has measured what he says he's measured.
** How do you know ? Were you there?
All claims that seem odd to others get challenged here - god knows
enough of mine have been and often very abusively. Every one of mine is
true - but if the "experts" here have no personal experience of something
then it can look very unlikely to some of them.
> For you to postulate conditions he didn't experience is wrong and
** Absolute rubbish - what you are saying here is WRONG and IRRLEVANT to
anything I actually posted. You are making a pompous, idiotic and offensive
speech, Win. That is very bad usenet practice - you should stick to
responding to someone's actual words and not indulge in wild imaginings of
[I have further opinions, but I'll remain silent.]
** I have some beauts about pricks like you too.
> Furthermore some of the rest of us have made similar measurements,
> are aware of "official" laboratory measurements on the properties
> of air, etc., and have therefore repeatedly offered our opinion on
> the reliability of Tom's reports, which knowledge and opinion you
> have rejected.
** This is all garbage - what are posts are you referring to ? Your
statements make no sense - it is all non-specific. You have enough
intelligence to realise how wrong it is to do this. No-one can answer a
non-specific complaint since that is merely abuse.
> As for your Farnell data, those are WORST case specs, thankfully
> rarely seen in practice.
** How do you know that ?? Look like typicals to me.
A production engineer ignores them at
> his peril, but you cannot use them to argue against laboratory
> component measurements made by skilled engineers who know better
> than you what they are doing.
** I did not do any such thing, Win. I posted them in self defence -
to show my reaction to the OPs claim was based on some evidence.
As I posted, PCB leakage phenomena is familiar territory to me from
my experience with designing condenser mic pre-amps and various repair work
on such mics.
> For these reasons I say, "Drop it: Your doubts are NOT reasonable."
** Yes they are entirely so. "Reasonable" and "correct" are not
synonyms you realise.
If you have some inside knowlede about the OPs expertise, fine - but I
do not and there was nothing in the OP to say how the amazing cct was built.
Can you try *real hard* Win to SEE a situation on a NG from *other*
than your OWN ivory tower point of view ??
Go Back To The Cyber-Spy.Com
Usenet Web Archive Index Of
The sci.electronics.design Newsgroup