Dielectric grease

[Gorminrider]

What about just some plain axle grease like we used to do on car battery posts?? Idea is really to keep the moisture from making oxidation in the connections so wouldnt grease be an acceptable option if he doesnt want to use the dielectric???

I myself would just use the dielectric and never have a second thought about it but its not my harness.

I know it doesn't work on boats, so tell him I said not to bother .

[Fjbj40]

Grease will lock in moisture, a fluid film with staying power is better.

[bwringer]

That ACF50 stuff looks pretty good. Should be a lot less messy than dielectric grease.

Then again, you can't just waltz into any auto parts store and walk out with a big can of it for $5 or less. Another weird chemical to order from Amazon, dammit.

[Fjbj40]

The thing with the ACF is a little goes a long way, it has great creeping action. Here is a source, http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalo...lickkey=211998 the aerosol is nice, but for the most applications for electrical I prefer the little 1/2 oz bottle with its really fine tip. I always get an ample supply of them at conferences and just refill with the aerosol.

[Grimly]

Unless you have some heavy MIL-SPEC salt fog applications the low viscosity treatments would seem preferable in most cases. I assume this ACF50 is similar to DeOxit or perhaps better?

I've been casting around for a locally available magic spray that might offer the same level of protection and apparent wonderfulness as the fabled Deoxit, which has all the availability of unicorn horns here - and found that ACF-50 is available from a stockist in Laois, and had been all this time. Damnit, now my aquisition gene is turned on and I will not be happy until a tin of it is firmly nestled in my hands, and to make the postage cost worthwhile, I might as well buy a tub of Corrosion Block, too.

http://www.acf-50ireland.ie/

Reading the bumph about it (assuming it's true and not the usual boolox) it seems to be good and I'd presume that total boolox is kind of frowned upon by the FAA if they're actually approving the application of the stuff into wing cavities, etc.

[gsgeezer]

I use deoxit on electrical switches and connectors, including on bikes. Once the electrical contacts are clean I use a thin film of dielectric on places like headlight bulb contacts and spark plug boots. I recently used deoxit on a friend's organ pedal contact switches and they went from producing staticy feedback to actual clean tones.

[azr]

I didn't realize Deoxit would serve as a lasting conductor, good to know.

[posplayr]

I have never used or seen DeOxit. The ACF, in my experience, will slow down and/or sometimes arrest corrosion. As for cleaning contacts I use contact cleaner, IPA 90% minimum, naptha and an acid brush or tooth brush followed by ACF.

ACF has very good results in the aerospace industry.

DeOxit is a Chemical cleaner with a protectant. DeOxit claims to improve conductivity

More than a contact cleaner, DeoxIT chemically improves electrical connections.

• Cleans, protects, lubricates, and improves conductivity

Presumably the improvement is more than just the cleaning as it claims it is more than just a cleaner.

http://www.amazon.com/Hosa-Cable-Deoxit-Contact-Cleaner/dp/B00006LVEU

ACF50 claims it is safe for electronics and does not "appreciably change resistance" in contacts. Is that worse than improving conductivity??? I don't know. It seems like ACF50 is a protectant primarily and does not harm electrical contacts "appreciably" (words from the spec sheet which I can't find again). DeOxit claims to improve electrical contacts.

Cleaning with DeOxit and spraying with ACF50 should be double protection with improved conductivity.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000P1C8UO/?tag=hydsma-20&hvadid=61098703260&hvpos=1t1&hvexid=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=4752323502648085452&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=b&hvdev=c&ref=pd_sl_8wdqbka4ai_b

• ACF-50 can be safely applied to electronics such as radios, timers, test equipment, antenna connections, computers, etc.
• ACF-50 can be safely applied to electrical components such as alternators, starters, magnetos, generators, distributors, carburators, wiring, switches, rheostats, compressors, battery terminals, light bulb sockets, electrical connectors, circuit breakers, ignition systems, wire harnesses, etc.

regardless the ACF50 looks like a better corrosion prevention product than DeOxit might be which is something I have used it for in the past. For example, I did an acid bath to clean a fuel level sensor and then coated it with DeOxit to stop it from flash rusting.

[Fjbj40]

I have been applying it to electrical connectors on aircraft, cars, boats and motorcycles for over 15 years with no ill effects or failure related to the application on those components. It is a great corrosion inhibitor, as I said before it has great creeping action, it wicks it's way into sandwiched assemblies very well. The proof for me was when I rewired my Boston Whaler 9 years ago, which is exclusively used in salt water. This summer I did some work which involved in wiring and when disassembled there was zero corrosion on some of the plain copper wires!

When I see approvals for use from Boeing and other airframe manufacturers it gets my approval

[chuck hahn]

I use fine sand paper for the male ends and Radio Shack electronics cleaner and a Q tip to clean inside the round female ends. Then the Dielectric and done.

[posplayr]

I have been applying it to electrical connectors on aircraft, cars, boats and motorcycles for over 15 years with no ill effects or failure related to the application on those components. It is a great corrosion inhibitor, as I said before it has great creeping action, it wicks it's way into sandwiched assemblies very well. The proof for me was when I rewired my Boston Whaler 9 years ago, which is exclusively used in salt water. This summer I did some work which involved in wiring and when disassembled there was zero corrosion on some of the plain copper wires!

When I see approvals for use from Boeing and other airframe manufacturers it gets my approval

Not having ever used ACF50, I have to assume what you say is correct about ACF50, the various approvals from the aerospace companies certainly speaks volumes. However the question is really whether ACF50 is better or worse with respect to low level resistance between conducting surfaces. For charging system connections between battery and R/R even 0.1 ohms is a very large resistance and since I see nothing quantified at that level.

There are also aerospace requirements for electrical bonding between faying surfaces and I see no mention that ACF50 is approved for that. It is one thing to say that ACF50 is approved and recommended for liberal and periodic spray application over electronic assemblies, it is another application all together to say it is approved for electrical bonding applications.

This question in my mind is what is the electrical resistance between flat ring lugs if ACF50 is applied v.s DeOxit for example. 0.01 or 0.025 ohms? The quantities are well below 0.1 ohms which for almost all electrical contacts does not matter. But for these critical connections it would be good to know what is best.

[Fjbj40]

Those are good questions Jim. I will talk to some of the avionics folks at work and see if they can shed some light onto this stuff.