Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-mc06.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 0A2C738000040; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 03:54:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1UDW6H-0007WN-U3 for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Thu, 07 Mar 2013 08:22:53 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1UDW6H-0007WE-78 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 07 Mar 2013 08:22:53 +0000 Received: from out1.ip07ir2.opaltelecom.net ([62.24.128.243]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1UDW6B-0002xy-51 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 07 Mar 2013 08:22:52 +0000 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvoCAN0/OFFOlmQ+/2dsb2JhbAANNogvuTyCXAQBgXyDFQkBAQEBAyNmCwMBBQ8JFgsCAgkDAgECAUUTCAEBsA9xkm2OBoENFoIXgRMDlkuTeoFpJA X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,800,1355097600"; d="scan'208,217";a="64795368" Received: from host-78-150-100-62.as13285.net (HELO [127.0.0.1]) ([78.150.100.62]) by out1.ip07ir2.opaltelecom.net with ESMTP; 07 Mar 2013 08:22:26 +0000 Message-ID: <51384E40.1080209@psk31.plus.com> Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 08:22:24 +0000 From: g3zjo User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120327 Thunderbird/11.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org References: <51371E11.6020502@psk31.plus.com> <513746F3.7090508@psk31.plus.com> <8A53C1DCE6BB4017B85B76DD1CB554EE@gnat> <51379E81.4060205@psk31.plus.com> In-Reply-To: X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 130306-1, 06/03/2013), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "relay1.thorcom.net", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: On 06/03/2013 22:59, Alan Melia wrote: > Did it recover or did it need repolarising or replacement? Alan I can't remember the amount of confusion it caused, no doubt my opto couplers and silicon 30V switches came into suspicion but finally the magnet was top suspect. I had in mind that heat cold or knocks can destroy a PM, making it a TM temporary magnet really. I took a ride over to a Ham in Rushden who had a grave yard and a replacement did the job. [...] Content analysis details: (0.0 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message X-Scan-Signature: c0336009bd9bab526ca27d297ea7579a Subject: Re: LF: Re: RTTY Protocol Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------040309090506020203040201" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.5 required=5.0 tests=HTML_20_30,HTML_MESSAGE autolearn=no version=2.63 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: rs_out_1@blacksheep.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No; SAEximRunCond expanded to false x-aol-global-disposition: G x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d604e513855de6699 X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------040309090506020203040201 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 06/03/2013 22:59, Alan Melia wrote: > Did it recover or did it need repolarising or replacement? Alan I can't remember the amount of confusion it caused, no doubt my opto couplers and silicon 30V switches came into suspicion but finally the magnet was top suspect. I had in mind that heat cold or knocks can destroy a PM, making it a TM temporary magnet really. I took a ride over to a Ham in Rushden who had a grave yard and a replacement did the job. 73 Eddie --------------040309090506020203040201 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 06/03/2013 22:59, Alan Melia wrote:
Did it recover or did it need repolarising or replacement?
Alan

I can't remember the amount of confusion it caused, no doubt my opto couplers and silicon 30V switches came into suspicion but finally the magnet was top suspect. I had in mind that heat cold or knocks can destroy a PM, making it a TM temporary magnet really.
I took a ride over to a Ham in Rushden who had a grave yard and a replacement did the job.

73 Eddie
--------------040309090506020203040201--