Thu Nov 04, 2004 4:53 pm

Donny M wrote:Bigdog,
If you're refering to a "Cowboy" bubble bath :!: :lol: :lol:
That's nothing to be :oops: :oops: about :!: :lol: :!: 8)


Is that like a "Texas jacuzzi"? :D :D

Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:11 pm

"Before I know it, I'll be in the "501" club".

I'm a member and didn't even know it. :oops: From the looks of it, I have the fewest posts of all members.

Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:32 pm

Where are they serving the ham bisquits?
Bill

Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:41 pm

1.03
The dielectric constant of methane gas :!: Put dat in your book :lol: :lol: :lol: 8)

Thu Nov 04, 2004 6:25 pm

"Where are they serving the ham bisquits?


Jim Hudson's table :!:

http://www.gweep.net/~leaf/album/objects/biscuits_6871.jpg

Thu Nov 04, 2004 6:28 pm

Jim could you e-mail me a couple of them?
Thanks Bill

Thu Nov 04, 2004 11:18 pm

Donny M wrote:My point is why would you want to decrease the efficiency of the contacts however small :?:


This discussion has been focusing on what happens when the switch is on. It is just as important to consider when it is off.

A non-dielectric grease will contribute to leakage, either through the circuit or to ground. Even dielectric grease will do it after it gets enough contamination, but the other grease is worse.

My experience has been leakage is as big a problem as poor contact has been. I have used both types of grease on switches. Given both aspects, I generally prefer dielectric grease. Note that I said generally. Just today I was working on something with a couple big slip rings and used Lubriplate.