[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Rubber toroids [plating]
From: Alfred A. Skrocki[SMTP:alfred.skrocki-at-cybernetworking-dot-com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 1997 5:26 AM
To: Tesla List
Subject: Re: Rubber toroids [plating]
On Monday, October 27, 1997 1:23 PM Harri Suomalainen
[SMTP:haba-at-cc.hut.fi] wrote;
> On Sat, 25 Oct 1997, Tesla List wrote:
> > The above soloution is fine IF you are going to submerge the object to be
> > plated in the plating soloution (I'd love to see you try plating a 6 foot
> > sphere that way)
> One possibility is rotating the object in the solution. As I began to
> think of electrochemical coating I figured that would be the only
> reasonable way to do the job. Haven_t tried it out (at least yet) but
> it should work fine in theory.
In mathematics the distance from the highest point on the curve to the
plain that cuts through the sphere representing the level of the liquid
in this case is called the sagita and the sagita on a 6 foot sphere with a
plating container 6 inches in diameter would be about 1/2 of an inch and
unless the plating tank got rather large like 3 feet in diameter or larger
the sagita wouldn't really get that much bigger. The point being that
trying to plate a large sphere or toroid while floating it in a plating
tank and then rotating the whole deal is going to get very problematic to
say the least!
> > If you look at my origional post I overcame the size
> > limitations imposed by immersing the sphere or toroid in the soloution by
> > instead saturating the soloution onto a foam brush connected to the
> > positive side of the power supply and using a painting action to plate the
> > surface which is connected to the negative side of the power supply.
> That is quite an interesting idea. Does the plating advance really fast
> enough for such "painting" operation? (Yes, I can guess it means *slow*
> movements and takes some time to do). I'd really love any more info on
> this method. As you've tried it out (used it perhaps much) you'd most
> probably be able to give lots of nice tricks you've discover so far.
Doing it with copper chloride is alot faster than with copper sulphate.
When I first stated experimenting I stayed in one area untill I could see
the copper starting to build up but later I found it is better to just
methodicaly go over the entire surface at a moderate pace even if it at
first it looks like nothing is building up, then after a few times around
the whole surface starts to show progress and it is a better surface for
all your efforts. The rule in plating is the slower it goes on the stronger
it builds. When the plating goes fast the copper grains are bigger and
courser thus more likely to crack and peal BUT when the plating goes slower
the copper grains are smaller and pack closser together thus making a less
porous and stronger surface.
> The downside for painting with a foam brush would be you'd easily rub off
> eg. graphite from the surface I guess. Gotta try it out and see myself.
Starting off with just a rubbed on graphite coating is going to lead to a
LOT of pealing and cracking off of the plating! It doesn't really bond
well enough to do lasting plating on. Now if you use Aguadad, or a graphite
with shellac mixture that will both bond to the painted surface and yet
still have reasonable conductivity, then the plating with a foam brush will
have little or no effect of the bond between the graphite and the surface.
Sincerely
\\\|///
\\ ~ ~ //
( -at- -at- )
-----o00o-(_)-o00o-----
Alfred A. Skrocki
Alfred.Skrocki-at-CyberNetworking-dot-com
.ooo0 0ooo.
-----( )---( )-----
\ ( ) /
\_) (_/