. > > Corrosion could certainly be a factor, i do keep my terminals clean > and my powder dry too, but if you look at the total conductor area > availble passing current from the lead casting into the 1/2inch hex > head of a stainless bolt, its not much area (ie circular mils in > another measure) to transfer current.

I used inexpensive roll clear vinyl window material, but the more expensive Stratoglass would work or even heavy (1 or 2 mil) plastic sheeting from a hardware store or home improvement store could probably work.

The mil-electronics division, like all other Boeing div's, has very strict rules about decommissioning electronics that are headed for surplus. I know, because I spent four good years on the Defense & Space side. The connector on the front is interesting.

I forgot to mention that in our products, we use 100% MIL-SPEC conformal coating, which seems to slow the growth of tin wiskers to the point of not being a significant concern (at least from the people knowledgeable in the process,) and our customers are buying it.

Pay no attention to the pin letters for the mil connector and read the footnotes under the table. Have Fun, Brooke Clarke http://www.PRC68.com http://www.precisionclock.com Jason Rabel wrote: > Interesting you would mention that! After my first post I pulled the board > with the connector and was looking at the traces from the DB-25.

>>Kings cage = 91836 >>mil spec:  M39012/01-0005 >> >>a few bucks each >> >>2. consider adding a foam in place insulation, inside the plastic pipe >>to support the coaxial cable. >>drill a 1/8" hole every few feet and squirt in the aerosol foam till it >>comes out of the hole.

cm^2 or a shake being 1E-8, both being from early nuclear weapons > development, and essentially a rounded value for some useful size: > cross-section for a nuclear reaction, and generation time for fission, > respectively) (I understand from some casual googling that the gnat's ass > is used by machinists to refer to a tenthousandth of an inch/tenth of a > mil

The > 9462s in the US military contract 1992s that I have seen (pretty much > all of the 1992s one sees in the US are from the mil contract, IME) > are marked "9462 454879." I have not seen an oscillator marked > "404386," so I do not know if these are Model 9462 oscillators or > another model.

. >> > RG-58 (which by the way, is a spec that officially no longer exists as > part of MIL-C17-28, ditto for RG-8, RG-213, etc. The military > apparently doesn't use PVC insulated wire any more.) comes in myriad > forms all of which bear a passing resemblance to each other.

. > > RG-58 (which by the way, is a spec that officially no longer exists as > part of MIL-C17-28, ditto for RG-8, RG-213, etc. The military apparently > doesn't use PVC insulated wire any more.) comes in myriad forms all of > which bear a passing resemblance to each other.