Gutting Sprague cans

[Findm-Keepm]

Originally Posted by Electronic M

Wonder if the wayback machine caught that site?

Naw, I checked first. They don't even have my old Geocities site - it was a huge (100MB!!) datasheet compilation - mostly obsolete Motorola stuff. Back then, the only datasheet sites were pay-as-you-go, so I built my own. I had a whopping.......172 visits in 2 years

That reminds me - I have a buddy that had his business website on AOL neighborhood, or whatever it was called. When they killed that, he and I spent an evening recreating his single page site with FrontPage. 12 images, none bigger than 320x400, and a pageload speed of 1.3 seconds@56K. Amazing - his business grosses high 6-figures, and he still has a one page website....

[Jon A.]

Originally Posted by Findm-Keepm

That reminds me - I have a buddy that had his business website on AOL neighborhood, or whatever it was called. When they killed that, he and I spent an evening recreating his single page site with FrontPage. 12 images, none bigger than 320x400, and a pageload speed of 1.3 seconds@56K. Amazing - his business grosses high 6-figures, and he still has a one page website....

It's a real time saver. Like a resume, too much fluff and it would be dismissed without being read. I miss sites lite that; easily handled by my Pentium 166MMX with 64MB RAM and Win98SE.

By the way I've seen those Hayseed Hamfest caps, I really like the look of those.

[Tubejunke]

Originally Posted by Jon A.

It's a real time saver. Like a resume, too much fluff and it would be dismissed without being read. I miss sites lite that; easily handled by my Pentium 166MMX with 64MB RAM and Win98SE.

Yeah, it's too bad that much of the WWW has evolved into sites that the aforementioned type of setup just can't handle. Or in my case a dial up 56K modem can't deliver. To me simple is most always better, but I know that my setup is archaic and simple, but not better.

Anyway, I still do just fine with this site and others like it left that aren't laden with huge pictures or anything streaming. Definitely miss out on Youtube and such. I can do all that on a laptop I keep, but I have to go to a WiFi provider. On the upside, my computer related costs have definitely been minimal.

[Jon A.]

Originally Posted by Tubejunke

Yeah, it's too bad that much of the WWW has evolved into sites that the aforementioned type of setup just can't handle. Or in my case a dial up 56K modem can't deliver. To me simple is most always better, but I know that my setup is archaic and simple, but not better.

Anyway, I still do just fine with this site and others like it left that aren't laden with huge pictures or anything streaming. Definitely miss out on Youtube and such. I can do all that on a laptop I keep, but I have to go to a WiFi provider. On the upside, my computer related costs have definitely been minimal.

I should clarify, that setup is long gone, I had it from 2001-2003 I believe. My current rig is about a decade old and has Windows 7 Pro but it's good enough for me. I don't know why old computers are priced like they're made of gold these days.

Anyway, I finally got the guts out of the cans. I finally realized the hard layer I hit wasn't tar at all, it was another phenolic wafer covered in black goo from the decayed rubber. The only cans I had taken apart before were smaller single-section units from late 70s/early 80s RCAs. These were a lot harder to gut even after I realized what I was doing wrong. They didn't smoke while being heated over the stove, but their contents did upon removal so I got them out of range of the smoke detector in a hurry.

Now to reverse-engineer a way to re-assemble them so they can be taken apart easily but look almost completely original; I have a couple of ideas. It's probably my OCD talking but I need to be able to check on the new caps. You never know, they could get blown by a power surge or who knows what.

Why not, this TV is quite scarce and needs a tremendous amount of work so I may as well hot-rod it.