🚀 go-pugleaf

On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 01:57:14 GMT, Howard Eisenhauer
<howarde@REMOVECAPShfx.eastlink.ca> wrote:

>On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 06:55:51 -0700 (PDT), a7yvm109gf5d1@netzero.com
>wrote:
>
>>On Mar 19, 12:47 am, z <gzuck...@snail-mail.net> wrote:
>>> On Mar 19, 12:24 am, "David L. Jones" <altz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Speaking of fake cache SRAM in another post reminded me of this fake
>>> > electrolytic cap. Some might get a laugh out of it:http://www.alternatezone.com/images/FakeCap.jpg
>>>
>>> > One has to wonder though if the fakers got faked? What's inside the Rubycon
>>> > cap?
>>>
>>> > Dave.
>>>
>>> i remember when consumer reports tested rechargable batteries, like in
>>> the 70s, a zillion years before they got popular. except for Radio
>>> Shack rechargables, there wasn't any more capacity in the C or D sizes
>>> than the AA size; which was understandable when they autopsied them
>>> and found that the bigger ones were just AA batteries padded out to
>>> larger size. Except for Radio Shack rechargable batteries, oddly
>>> enough.
>>
>>Radio Shack always had great batteries. Their gold alkaline cells were
>>outstanding, I have some 15 year old AAA cells that I use once in a
>>while, still good!
>>Same for their blue NiCads, held a charge like crazy, still work after
>>10 years.
>
>
>THE WINAH!!!
>
>http://tantel.ca/Images/Holder/sm_battery_1.jpg
>
>
>No, I don't know how old it really is but it came outta an early 60's
>vintage Heathkit VTVM I got on ebay 4-5 years ago, from the logo it
>could actually be original to the unit :/.
>
>And yes, that really is the voltage from that battery showing on the
>meter, & yes, I took the pic today (Mar 19/09).
>
>H.

Cool.  Again, evidence that the statistical tails never really go to
zero.
  .