Ad Widget

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Magnet wire short to alnico rods on stacked single.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by David King View Post
    L'Oreal holds the patent on this stuff and they are attempting to defend it aggressively. For a while you could pickup cheap knockoffs of the UV curing box on ebay and then one day they all disappeared. I use some uv cured doming epoxy for finishing small parts. The stuff is pretty hard but it doesn't adhere very well. I did manage to buy a 36W fluorescent nail curing box for cheap and I use it from time to time. Full cure takes about 5 minutes but the stuff goes on real thick and then pulls away from a hard surface like metal.
    L'Oreal does not hold the patent for UV cured industrial adhesives, so there is hope. A google on "UV cure" yields lots of hits.

    The original UV cure was for bonding lenses together: https://www.norlandprod.com/adhesiveindex2.html

    The advantage was speed and optical clarity (epoxy yellows, and takes too long to cure). This replaced Canada Balsam.

    There were UV sources for cure in seconds, or one could set the assembly out in sunlight, such as on a window sill.

    Comment


    • #17
      True enough but the small, cheap light sources that use 9W fluorescent tubes were covered in the patent along with the nail-specific formulation.
      I use this stuff: LisaPavelka.com | Polymer Clay and Mixed Media Artwork Crafting Products It cures nicely in sunlight, it's 100% solids, no smell at all. The MSDS says it's bis-phenol A.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by David King View Post
        True enough but the small, cheap light sources that use 9W fluorescent tubes were covered in the patent along with the nail-specific formulation.
        I use this stuff: LisaPavelka.com | Polymer Clay and Mixed Media Artwork Crafting Products It cures nicely in sunlight, it's 100% solids, no smell at all. The MSDS says it's bis-phenol A.
        I doubt that L'Oreal could patent the use of a fluorescent UV source. People have been using arc lamp sources for decades. It does not matter that such is mentioned in the patent, unless it is named in the claims.

        By the way, what is the patent number?

        Comment


        • #19
          Joe,
          It might be a TM or a copywrite, all I know is that their legal team caused eBay to stop hundreds of sellers overnight. eBay has a fairly strict policy regarding what they consider counterfeit goods. How these lamps would qualify as counterfeit I don't know...

          Comment


          • #20
            Tape tape tape forever. Had lots of shorts before using it, none since.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Zhangliqun View Post
              Tape tape tape forever. Had lots of shorts before using it, none since.
              I agree.
              I have used all kind of spray lacquers, and such, and I still get shorts.
              I know some guys do the Lacquer Double dip thing, but that is too much trouble, too messy, and too time consuming!
              Tape, Tape, Tape, is IMO the right answer.
              "If Hitler invaded Hell, I would make at least a favourable reference of the Devil in the House of Commons." Winston Churchill
              Terry

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by David King View Post
                Joe,
                It might be a TM or a copyright, all I know is that their legal team caused eBay to stop hundreds of sellers overnight. eBay has a fairly strict policy regarding what they consider counterfeit goods. How these lamps would qualify as counterfeit I don't know...
                OK. I suppose one could ask eBay. Though they are not very communicative.

                Anyway, reputable outfits like Master Bond carry UV-cure materials, and there are many makers of cure lamps, so there should be no problem to use this method, should one wish to. L'Oreal is not relevant here.

                Comment


                • #23
                  The fundamental difference is the intensity of the UV and the wavelengths needed to initiate the curing process. The industrial processes have been around for several decades at least and the equipment is both prohibitively expensive and potentially dangerous. What L'Oreal came up with was a very safe, low intensity photo-initiator that cured at a longer wavelength in the UVa band (365 nm). It's very easy to make a low power fluorescent or LED bulb that can handle the job vs the old mercury halide high pressure bulbs that need an expensive power supply and precise cooling system to keep the exterior of the bulb at most efficient temperature. With new low power systems you can expose yourself or your employees to it all day with no burns or long term health effects. Dentists have also adopted similar (blue light) technology but again the price of the materials and lamps they are using is still orders of magnitude more than what we might be willing to pay.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Stratz View Post
                    I've tried nail polish, nail hardener and other hard coatings over the years but sometimes I still got shorts.

                    I just didn't have the correct tape for the job this time so I took a chance.

                    My father introduced me to Kaptan tape long ago. I should have just waited until I had the proper size....

                    Tape does not guarantee success if your flatwork has a tendency to move slightly whereas a lacquer can help to bond the flatwork.

                    If you can't avoid a short with clear nail varnish then you may use a coloured one. I have no recommendation for you other than buy one that brings out the colour of your eyes.
                    sigpic Dyed in the wool

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      I like the tape.
                      Last edited by big_teee; 05-10-2013, 01:52 AM.
                      "If Hitler invaded Hell, I would make at least a favourable reference of the Devil in the House of Commons." Winston Churchill
                      Terry

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by David King View Post
                        The fundamental difference is the intensity of the UV and the wavelengths needed to initiate the curing process. The industrial processes have been around for several decades at least and the equipment is both prohibitively expensive and potentially dangerous. What L'Oreal came up with was a very safe, low intensity photo-initiator that cured at a longer wavelength in the UVa band (365 nm). It's very easy to make a low power fluorescent or LED bulb that can handle the job vs the old mercury halide high pressure bulbs that need an expensive power supply and precise cooling system to keep the exterior of the bulb at most efficient temperature. With new low power systems you can expose yourself or your employees to it all day with no burns or long term health effects. Dentists have also adopted similar (blue light) technology but again the price of the materials and lamps they are using is still orders of magnitude more than what we might be willing to pay.
                        If you do need this kind of system, don't give up hope. There are many companies that make UV cure materials, and L'Oreal is not making the stuff they sell. Recall that the Norland stuff would cure on a sunny windowsill.

                        Google brought this up: 36W UV Gel Nail Curing Lamp Dryer White - Tmart.com

                        There are also UV LED curing lights. It's a very large world.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X