M
M.I.5¾
Gordon said:
No they are not. In the current (!) dicussion, they are used to smooth
voltage. That is not their only function however.
No they are not. In the current (!) dicussion, they are used to smooth
voltage. That is not their only function however.
M
M.I.5¾
sgopus said:
Some of us may have done. The relevance to this dicussion is what exactly?
M
M.I.5¾
db ´¯`·.. > said:
The greatest transient current taken by a motor is when it is at standstill,
but the drive electronics limits this to sensible proportions anyway. The
motors will actually take less transient current if repowered while still
rotating. The advice about allowing the drive to stop is sound, but is
actually unrelated to the motor.
R
RnR
With all due respect, are we on a crusade to prove who is right or to
help the now confused OP ?? Do you think the OP gave up on us? I
know at this point if I were him, I would have.
Y
Yousuf Khan
Prisoner said:
Well, it's simple really, all of the viruses and malware that afflict
Microsoft operating systems have finally banded together to form a
neural net that has achieved sentience. The newly sentient entity has
now figured out a way to be able to horde electricity for background
operations even when the computer is off. It can send you Viagra notices
whenever it likes now.
Yousuf Khan
A
Androcles
:
: : >
: > : > :
: > :
: > : > On Nov 15, 3:23 am, "M.I.5 3/4" <[email protected]_SPAM.co.uk>
wrote:
: > : >> All capacitor made are not equal - it's a fact of manufacturing.
: > About
: > : >> half
: > : >> the capacitors will work better than they were designed to, and the
: > other
: > : >> half will not work as well.
: > : >
: > : > Not quite correct. Almost all work at least as good as they were
: > : > designed for. Some will work far better. Cofidence levels - all
: > : > capacitors must at least meet specs - what they are intended to do.
: > : >
: > :
: > : You really don't know anything do you?
: > :
: > : Capacitors are produced is such large quantities that the conformance
to
: > : specification is done by testing a sample of each batch only. It is a
: > : fundamental requirement of sample testing that you have to accept that
: > items
: > : that do not conform to specification will be accepted. If you cannot
: > accept
: > : that then you can't do sample testing. Also, if you have a look at
any
: > : sample testing tables,
: >
: > Bwahahahahahah!
: > You really don't know anything about Quality Control, do you?
: >
:
: Probably more than you do sunshine.
:
: > Do these words mean anything to you: Mean, Variance, Standard Deviation?
: >
:
: Certainly do. Thats how sampling tables get produced in the first place.
Some of us have been QA Managers in our careers, moonshine, so
your "probably" has a probability of less than 0.0001.
Sample testing tables... hahahahaha!
Is that like log or sine tables, or have you heard of calculators and
computers in the Outback of Scotland, Northern Ireland or Wales yet?
You sure are not from the South East of England or the USA even
with a .co.uk email address or an allusion to MI5.
Sample testing tables... maybe Noah used them to select quality
timber for his ark. Too funny, moonshine, you are no bright
sunshine, are you?
: : >
: > : > :
: > :
: > : > On Nov 15, 3:23 am, "M.I.5 3/4" <[email protected]_SPAM.co.uk>
wrote:
: > : >> All capacitor made are not equal - it's a fact of manufacturing.
: > About
: > : >> half
: > : >> the capacitors will work better than they were designed to, and the
: > other
: > : >> half will not work as well.
: > : >
: > : > Not quite correct. Almost all work at least as good as they were
: > : > designed for. Some will work far better. Cofidence levels - all
: > : > capacitors must at least meet specs - what they are intended to do.
: > : >
: > :
: > : You really don't know anything do you?
: > :
: > : Capacitors are produced is such large quantities that the conformance
to
: > : specification is done by testing a sample of each batch only. It is a
: > : fundamental requirement of sample testing that you have to accept that
: > items
: > : that do not conform to specification will be accepted. If you cannot
: > accept
: > : that then you can't do sample testing. Also, if you have a look at
any
: > : sample testing tables,
: >
: > Bwahahahahahah!
: > You really don't know anything about Quality Control, do you?
: >
:
: Probably more than you do sunshine.
:
: > Do these words mean anything to you: Mean, Variance, Standard Deviation?
: >
:
: Certainly do. Thats how sampling tables get produced in the first place.
Some of us have been QA Managers in our careers, moonshine, so
your "probably" has a probability of less than 0.0001.
Sample testing tables... hahahahaha!
Is that like log or sine tables, or have you heard of calculators and
computers in the Outback of Scotland, Northern Ireland or Wales yet?
You sure are not from the South East of England or the USA even
with a .co.uk email address or an allusion to MI5.
Sample testing tables... maybe Noah used them to select quality
timber for his ark. Too funny, moonshine, you are no bright
sunshine, are you?
A
Androcles
:
: : >
: > : > :
: > : : > : >
: > : > : > : > :
: > : > : : > : > : > How do you dream up all these ridiculous things?"M.I.5¾"
: > : > : >
: > : > : > : > : > : >
: > : > : >
: > : > : >
: > : > : > >: > : > : > >> What type of capacitor has to cool off before it accepts a
: > charge?
: > : > : >
: > : > : > > A: A faulty one.
: > : > : >
: > : > : > > It is well a known problem particularly among certain types of
: > : > : > > electrolytic capacitors. The usual problem is that the EPR
: > : > (Effective
: > : > : > > parallel resistance) of the capacitor falls alarmingly as it
: > warms
: > : > up
: > : > : > > rendering it ineffective as a capacitor.
: > : > :
: > : > : Two charts of electrolytic capacitor failure modes. Check out
: > : > : Table 2 here:
: > : > :
http://industrial.panasonic.com/www-data/pdf/ABA0000/ABA0000TE4.pdf
: > : > :
: > : > : Operating at high temperature is shown to cause failure
: > : > : by increase in leakage current.
: > : > :
: > : > : or Figure 2.10 here:
: > : > :
: > : >
: >
http://etd.gatech.edu/theses/available/etd-04082007-083102/unrestricted/imam_afroz_m_200705_phd.pdf
: > : > :
: > : > : Operating at high temperature is shown to cause failure
: > : > : by loss of effective resistance (i.e. increased leakage).
: > : > :
: > : > : -----------
: > : > :
: > : > : Indeed. In general electrolytic capacitors are rated at either
85°C
: > or
: > : > : 105°C. The former is obviously cheaper than the latter and that's
: > often
: > : > : what gets used as such supplies don't run that warm. However,
even
: > if
: > : > : operated below 85°C, the former type are considerably more
: > unreliable
: > : > than
: > : > : the latter.
: > : >
: > : > Oh, so the latter break down at temperatures below 85°C because
: > : > they are less reliable than the former cheaper ones... very logical.
: > : >
: > :
: > : How you managed to arrive at that conclusion is anyone's guess.
: >
: > It's quite simple. Here's a table, you like tables.
: >
: > ------------------- Former ------------------ Latter ----------------
: > < 85°C reliable unreliable
: > > 85°C unreliable reliable
: > _____________________________________________
: >
:
: Don't be pillock all your life, have a day off occasionally. I neither
said
: that nor inferred it. I stated that even when operated below 85°C,
: capacitors rated at 85°C are more unreliable than those rated at 105°C.
Don't be a **** all your life, you haven't much data for the reliability
of 105°C rated capacitors operated in ambient temperatures.
You'll be telling us next that low power Schottky TTL is reliable,
and that's crap.
: : >
: > : > :
: > : : > : >
: > : > : > : > :
: > : > : : > : > : > How do you dream up all these ridiculous things?"M.I.5¾"
: > : > : >
: > : > : > : > : > : >
: > : > : >
: > : > : >
: > : > : > >: > : > : > >> What type of capacitor has to cool off before it accepts a
: > charge?
: > : > : >
: > : > : > > A: A faulty one.
: > : > : >
: > : > : > > It is well a known problem particularly among certain types of
: > : > : > > electrolytic capacitors. The usual problem is that the EPR
: > : > (Effective
: > : > : > > parallel resistance) of the capacitor falls alarmingly as it
: > warms
: > : > up
: > : > : > > rendering it ineffective as a capacitor.
: > : > :
: > : > : Two charts of electrolytic capacitor failure modes. Check out
: > : > : Table 2 here:
: > : > :
http://industrial.panasonic.com/www-data/pdf/ABA0000/ABA0000TE4.pdf
: > : > :
: > : > : Operating at high temperature is shown to cause failure
: > : > : by increase in leakage current.
: > : > :
: > : > : or Figure 2.10 here:
: > : > :
: > : >
: >
http://etd.gatech.edu/theses/available/etd-04082007-083102/unrestricted/imam_afroz_m_200705_phd.pdf
: > : > :
: > : > : Operating at high temperature is shown to cause failure
: > : > : by loss of effective resistance (i.e. increased leakage).
: > : > :
: > : > : -----------
: > : > :
: > : > : Indeed. In general electrolytic capacitors are rated at either
85°C
: > or
: > : > : 105°C. The former is obviously cheaper than the latter and that's
: > often
: > : > : what gets used as such supplies don't run that warm. However,
even
: > if
: > : > : operated below 85°C, the former type are considerably more
: > unreliable
: > : > than
: > : > : the latter.
: > : >
: > : > Oh, so the latter break down at temperatures below 85°C because
: > : > they are less reliable than the former cheaper ones... very logical.
: > : >
: > :
: > : How you managed to arrive at that conclusion is anyone's guess.
: >
: > It's quite simple. Here's a table, you like tables.
: >
: > ------------------- Former ------------------ Latter ----------------
: > < 85°C reliable unreliable
: > > 85°C unreliable reliable
: > _____________________________________________
: >
:
: Don't be pillock all your life, have a day off occasionally. I neither
said
: that nor inferred it. I stated that even when operated below 85°C,
: capacitors rated at 85°C are more unreliable than those rated at 105°C.
Don't be a **** all your life, you haven't much data for the reliability
of 105°C rated capacitors operated in ambient temperatures.
You'll be telling us next that low power Schottky TTL is reliable,
and that's crap.
J
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
"About half the capacitors will work better than they were designed
to, and the other
half will not work as well."
I wonder if you are playing with words.
"designed"
As opposed to the specifications potential customers are given.
They must meet the specifications or the customer has recourse.
Possible warranty replacement, legal action etc.
The lower half need to be appropriately packages and sold accordingly.
If I purchase a product with certain specifications, that is what I am
legally and otherwise entitled.
If half do not meet the design standard, then the specifications of
manufacture need to be raised or the documentation available to
customers needs to be lowered.
50% below documented specifications is simply unacceptable.
That is not to say anything less than 100% is unacceptable, but even
then the manufacturer may have to deal with returns/replacement of
substandard product.
to, and the other
half will not work as well."
I wonder if you are playing with words.
"designed"
As opposed to the specifications potential customers are given.
They must meet the specifications or the customer has recourse.
Possible warranty replacement, legal action etc.
The lower half need to be appropriately packages and sold accordingly.
If I purchase a product with certain specifications, that is what I am
legally and otherwise entitled.
If half do not meet the design standard, then the specifications of
manufacture need to be raised or the documentation available to
customers needs to be lowered.
50% below documented specifications is simply unacceptable.
That is not to say anything less than 100% is unacceptable, but even
then the manufacturer may have to deal with returns/replacement of
substandard product.
A
Androcles
: On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 12:32:50 -0000, "M.I.5¾"
:
: >
: >: >>
: >> : >> :
: >> : : >> : >
: >> : > : >> : > :
: >> : > : : >> : > : > How do you dream up all these ridiculous things?"M.I.5¾"
: >> : > : >
: >> : > : > : >> : > : >
: >> : > : >
: >> : > : >
: >> : > : > >: >> : > : > >> What type of capacitor has to cool off before it accepts a
: >> charge?
: >> : > : >
: >> : > : > > A: A faulty one.
: >> : > : >
: >> : > : > > It is well a known problem particularly among certain types
of
: >> : > : > > electrolytic capacitors. The usual problem is that the EPR
: >> : > (Effective
: >> : > : > > parallel resistance) of the capacitor falls alarmingly as it
: >> warms
: >> : > up
: >> : > : > > rendering it ineffective as a capacitor.
: >> : > :
: >> : > : Two charts of electrolytic capacitor failure modes. Check out
: >> : > : Table 2 here:
: >> : > :
http://industrial.panasonic.com/www-data/pdf/ABA0000/ABA0000TE4.pdf
: >> : > :
: >> : > : Operating at high temperature is shown to cause failure
: >> : > : by increase in leakage current.
: >> : > :
: >> : > : or Figure 2.10 here:
: >> : > :
: >> : >
: >>
http://etd.gatech.edu/theses/available/etd-04082007-083102/unrestricted/imam_afroz_m_200705_phd.pdf
: >> : > :
: >> : > : Operating at high temperature is shown to cause failure
: >> : > : by loss of effective resistance (i.e. increased leakage).
: >> : > :
: >> : > : -----------
: >> : > :
: >> : > : Indeed. In general electrolytic capacitors are rated at either
85°C
: >> or
: >> : > : 105°C. The former is obviously cheaper than the latter and
that's
: >> often
: >> : > : what gets used as such supplies don't run that warm. However,
even
: >> if
: >> : > : operated below 85°C, the former type are considerably more
: >> unreliable
: >> : > than
: >> : > : the latter.
: >> : >
: >> : > Oh, so the latter break down at temperatures below 85°C because
: >> : > they are less reliable than the former cheaper ones... very
logical.
: >> : >
: >> :
: >> : How you managed to arrive at that conclusion is anyone's guess.
: >>
: >> It's quite simple. Here's a table, you like tables.
: >>
: >> ------------------- Former ------------------ Latter ----------------
: >> < 85°C reliable unreliable
: >> > 85°C unreliable reliable
: >> _____________________________________________
: >>
: >
: >Don't be pillock all your life, have a day off occasionally. I neither
said
: >that nor inferred it. I stated that even when operated below 85°C,
: >capacitors rated at 85°C are more unreliable than those rated at 105°C.
: >
:
:
: With all due respect, are we on a crusade to prove who is right or to
: help the now confused OP ?? Do you think the OP gave up on us? I
: know at this point if I were him, I would have.
If the OP doesn't have his answer by now he's in serious trouble.
This M.I.5¾ character seems to hallucinate that reliability is
a function of temperature without testing for failure rates
of 105°C rated capacitors at sub-zero temperatures, which
is the case for some military aircraft.
:
: >
: >: >>
: >> : >> :
: >> : : >> : >
: >> : > : >> : > :
: >> : > : : >> : > : > How do you dream up all these ridiculous things?"M.I.5¾"
: >> : > : >
: >> : > : > : >> : > : >
: >> : > : >
: >> : > : >
: >> : > : > >: >> : > : > >> What type of capacitor has to cool off before it accepts a
: >> charge?
: >> : > : >
: >> : > : > > A: A faulty one.
: >> : > : >
: >> : > : > > It is well a known problem particularly among certain types
of
: >> : > : > > electrolytic capacitors. The usual problem is that the EPR
: >> : > (Effective
: >> : > : > > parallel resistance) of the capacitor falls alarmingly as it
: >> warms
: >> : > up
: >> : > : > > rendering it ineffective as a capacitor.
: >> : > :
: >> : > : Two charts of electrolytic capacitor failure modes. Check out
: >> : > : Table 2 here:
: >> : > :
http://industrial.panasonic.com/www-data/pdf/ABA0000/ABA0000TE4.pdf
: >> : > :
: >> : > : Operating at high temperature is shown to cause failure
: >> : > : by increase in leakage current.
: >> : > :
: >> : > : or Figure 2.10 here:
: >> : > :
: >> : >
: >>
http://etd.gatech.edu/theses/available/etd-04082007-083102/unrestricted/imam_afroz_m_200705_phd.pdf
: >> : > :
: >> : > : Operating at high temperature is shown to cause failure
: >> : > : by loss of effective resistance (i.e. increased leakage).
: >> : > :
: >> : > : -----------
: >> : > :
: >> : > : Indeed. In general electrolytic capacitors are rated at either
85°C
: >> or
: >> : > : 105°C. The former is obviously cheaper than the latter and
that's
: >> often
: >> : > : what gets used as such supplies don't run that warm. However,
even
: >> if
: >> : > : operated below 85°C, the former type are considerably more
: >> unreliable
: >> : > than
: >> : > : the latter.
: >> : >
: >> : > Oh, so the latter break down at temperatures below 85°C because
: >> : > they are less reliable than the former cheaper ones... very
logical.
: >> : >
: >> :
: >> : How you managed to arrive at that conclusion is anyone's guess.
: >>
: >> It's quite simple. Here's a table, you like tables.
: >>
: >> ------------------- Former ------------------ Latter ----------------
: >> < 85°C reliable unreliable
: >> > 85°C unreliable reliable
: >> _____________________________________________
: >>
: >
: >Don't be pillock all your life, have a day off occasionally. I neither
said
: >that nor inferred it. I stated that even when operated below 85°C,
: >capacitors rated at 85°C are more unreliable than those rated at 105°C.
: >
:
:
: With all due respect, are we on a crusade to prove who is right or to
: help the now confused OP ?? Do you think the OP gave up on us? I
: know at this point if I were him, I would have.
If the OP doesn't have his answer by now he's in serious trouble.
This M.I.5¾ character seems to hallucinate that reliability is
a function of temperature without testing for failure rates
of 105°C rated capacitors at sub-zero temperatures, which
is the case for some military aircraft.
U
Unknown
Surely you don't think his head is THAT big?
W
w_tom
Wow. First M.I.5 3/4 says I don't know anything. Then he explains the
process I specifically defined: Confidence Levels. Why do you
insult when the point is secondary and trivial;, and when Confidence
Levels are how virtually all manufacturer capacitors meet (or exceed)
specs.
Confidence Levels are why virtually all capacitors meet or exceed
specs. Do you know where your 'tables' come from? Please learn
about confidence levels. Sampling is part of the process so that
virtually all product meets or exceeds a spec. Charts are given to
those who don't have a clue beyond Mean, Variance, Standard Deviation.
- concepts from "Intro to Statistics'. Statistical Process Control
requires more education. Confidence Levels are why virtually all
capacitors meet or exceed manufacturer specs.
It is M.I.5 3/4 who "really don't know anything do you?" M.I.5 3/4 does
not even know what a Confidence Level is. So he insults others to
mask his ignorance rather than ask to learn. Then Bwahahs like a
baby who needs to be fed.
Meanwhile this (including M.I.5 3/4 ignorance of basic Statistical
Process Control) is irrelevant. Room temperature has nothing to do
with creating the OPs problem. Any PC that requires an air
conditioned room contains hardware defects.
A
Androcles
Yes... and hollow. The distance between his ears is approximately
5¾"/pi ~= 1.67 with volume of empty space 2.44 cubic inches.
: Surely you don't think his head is THAT big?
: : >
: > : > :
: > : : > : >
: > : > : > : > :
: > : > : : > : > : > Sounds like a short circuit to me. Perhaps he's connecting
: > : > : > them with the wrong polarity of the "certain type".
: > : > : >
: > : > :
: > : > : It's not a short circuit as such, just a lower resistance in
: > parallel
: > : >
: > : > If you connect a copper wire or a solder splash across the cap
: > : > you'd be connecting a lower resistance in parallel, even copper
: > : > wire has some resistance. That's a short circuit by definition.
: > : >
: > :
: > : So?
: >
: > So it is a short circuit of "the certain type" "as such", contrary to
your
: > hand-waving waffle. What's the 5¾ for? Not your hat size, surely?
: >
: >
:
:
5¾"/pi ~= 1.67 with volume of empty space 2.44 cubic inches.
: Surely you don't think his head is THAT big?
: : >
: > : > :
: > : : > : >
: > : > : > : > :
: > : > : : > : > : > Sounds like a short circuit to me. Perhaps he's connecting
: > : > : > them with the wrong polarity of the "certain type".
: > : > : >
: > : > :
: > : > : It's not a short circuit as such, just a lower resistance in
: > parallel
: > : >
: > : > If you connect a copper wire or a solder splash across the cap
: > : > you'd be connecting a lower resistance in parallel, even copper
: > : > wire has some resistance. That's a short circuit by definition.
: > : >
: > :
: > : So?
: >
: > So it is a short circuit of "the certain type" "as such", contrary to
your
: > hand-waving waffle. What's the 5¾ for? Not your hat size, surely?
: >
: >
:
:
A
AnimalMagic
The "soft switch" of the laptop lid fired a transistor which turns the
HV source on.
Banging it with a hammer would merely produce a dent.
T
TheKraken
There is a such thing as an overtly crosspoting Usenet retard!
You qualify!
M
M.I.5¾
Jupiter Jones said:
You are confusing what they are designed to do with what they are specified
to do. If you want all (or in practice the majority of) your produced
capacitors to meet or exceed what they are specified to do then you need to
design them to exceed that specification. When you come to manufacture
them, the process of manufacturing tolerances should ensure that on average,
they meet the design requirements. But by definition that average means
that half are better and half are worse (assuming a Gaussian distribution -
which it should be). The trick is ensuring that enough are better than the
published specification that your customers don't reject them. However,
whatever you do, there will always be a percentage (and hopefully a small
percentage) that fall outside of the published specification. How big that
percentage is depends on by how much you over engineer them.
M
M.I.5¾
Androcles said:
Thus proving beyond all reasonable doubt that you are imagining content in
my posts that simply isn't there.
I think the kill file beckons. Ah 'tis done.
A
Androcles
:
: : >
: > : > : On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 12:32:50 -0000, "M.I.5¾"
: > :
: > : >
: > : >: > : >>
: > : >> : > : >> :
: > : >> : : > : >> : >
: > : >> : > : > : >> : > :
: > : >> : > : : > : >> : > : > How do you dream up all these ridiculous things?"M.I.5¾"
: > : >> : > : >
: > : >> : > : > : > : >> : > : >
: > : >> : > : >
: > : >> : > : >
: > : >> : > : > >: > : >> : > : > >> What type of capacitor has to cool off before it accepts
a
: > : >> charge?
: > : >> : > : >
: > : >> : > : > > A: A faulty one.
: > : >> : > : >
: > : >> : > : > > It is well a known problem particularly among certain
types
: > of
: > : >> : > : > > electrolytic capacitors. The usual problem is that the
EPR
: > : >> : > (Effective
: > : >> : > : > > parallel resistance) of the capacitor falls alarmingly as
: > it
: > : >> warms
: > : >> : > up
: > : >> : > : > > rendering it ineffective as a capacitor.
: > : >> : > :
: > : >> : > : Two charts of electrolytic capacitor failure modes. Check out
: > : >> : > : Table 2 here:
: > : >> : > :
: > http://industrial.panasonic.com/www-data/pdf/ABA0000/ABA0000TE4.pdf
: > : >> : > :
: > : >> : > : Operating at high temperature is shown to cause failure
: > : >> : > : by increase in leakage current.
: > : >> : > :
: > : >> : > : or Figure 2.10 here:
: > : >> : > :
: > : >> : >
: > : >>
: >
http://etd.gatech.edu/theses/available/etd-04082007-083102/unrestricted/imam_afroz_m_200705_phd.pdf
: > : >> : > :
: > : >> : > : Operating at high temperature is shown to cause failure
: > : >> : > : by loss of effective resistance (i.e. increased leakage).
: > : >> : > :
: > : >> : > : -----------
: > : >> : > :
: > : >> : > : Indeed. In general electrolytic capacitors are rated at
either
: > 85°C
: > : >> or
: > : >> : > : 105°C. The former is obviously cheaper than the latter and
: > that's
: > : >> often
: > : >> : > : what gets used as such supplies don't run that warm.
However,
: > even
: > : >> if
: > : >> : > : operated below 85°C, the former type are considerably more
: > : >> unreliable
: > : >> : > than
: > : >> : > : the latter.
: > : >> : >
: > : >> : > Oh, so the latter break down at temperatures below 85°C because
: > : >> : > they are less reliable than the former cheaper ones... very
: > logical.
: > : >> : >
: > : >> :
: > : >> : How you managed to arrive at that conclusion is anyone's guess.
: > : >>
: > : >> It's quite simple. Here's a table, you like tables.
: > : >>
: > : >> ------------------- Former ------------------
: > Latter ----------------
: > : >> < 85°C reliable unreliable
: > : >> > 85°C unreliable reliable
: > : >> _____________________________________________
: > : >>
: > : >
: > : >Don't be pillock all your life, have a day off occasionally. I
neither
: > said
: > : >that nor inferred it. I stated that even when operated below 85°C,
: > : >capacitors rated at 85°C are more unreliable than those rated at
105°C.
: > : >
: > :
: > :
: > : With all due respect, are we on a crusade to prove who is right or to
: > : help the now confused OP ?? Do you think the OP gave up on us? I
: > : know at this point if I were him, I would have.
: >
: > If the OP doesn't have his answer by now he's in serious trouble.
: > This M.I.5¾ character seems to hallucinate that reliability is
: > a function of temperature without testing for failure rates
: > of 105°C rated capacitors at sub-zero temperatures, which
: > is the case for some military aircraft.
: >
:
: Thus proving beyond all reasonable doubt that you are imagining content in
: my posts that simply isn't there.
:
: I think the kill file beckons. Ah 'tis done.
Always nice to see a chicken shit duck out without proving his claim.
"However, even if operated below 85°C, the former type are considerably more
unreliable than the latter." - Chicken Shit "MI5" and a bit.
: : >
: > : > : On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 12:32:50 -0000, "M.I.5¾"
: > :
: > : >
: > : >: > : >>
: > : >> : > : >> :
: > : >> : : > : >> : >
: > : >> : > : > : >> : > :
: > : >> : > : : > : >> : > : > How do you dream up all these ridiculous things?"M.I.5¾"
: > : >> : > : >
: > : >> : > : > : > : >> : > : >
: > : >> : > : >
: > : >> : > : >
: > : >> : > : > >: > : >> : > : > >> What type of capacitor has to cool off before it accepts
a
: > : >> charge?
: > : >> : > : >
: > : >> : > : > > A: A faulty one.
: > : >> : > : >
: > : >> : > : > > It is well a known problem particularly among certain
types
: > of
: > : >> : > : > > electrolytic capacitors. The usual problem is that the
EPR
: > : >> : > (Effective
: > : >> : > : > > parallel resistance) of the capacitor falls alarmingly as
: > it
: > : >> warms
: > : >> : > up
: > : >> : > : > > rendering it ineffective as a capacitor.
: > : >> : > :
: > : >> : > : Two charts of electrolytic capacitor failure modes. Check out
: > : >> : > : Table 2 here:
: > : >> : > :
: > http://industrial.panasonic.com/www-data/pdf/ABA0000/ABA0000TE4.pdf
: > : >> : > :
: > : >> : > : Operating at high temperature is shown to cause failure
: > : >> : > : by increase in leakage current.
: > : >> : > :
: > : >> : > : or Figure 2.10 here:
: > : >> : > :
: > : >> : >
: > : >>
: >
http://etd.gatech.edu/theses/available/etd-04082007-083102/unrestricted/imam_afroz_m_200705_phd.pdf
: > : >> : > :
: > : >> : > : Operating at high temperature is shown to cause failure
: > : >> : > : by loss of effective resistance (i.e. increased leakage).
: > : >> : > :
: > : >> : > : -----------
: > : >> : > :
: > : >> : > : Indeed. In general electrolytic capacitors are rated at
either
: > 85°C
: > : >> or
: > : >> : > : 105°C. The former is obviously cheaper than the latter and
: > that's
: > : >> often
: > : >> : > : what gets used as such supplies don't run that warm.
However,
: > even
: > : >> if
: > : >> : > : operated below 85°C, the former type are considerably more
: > : >> unreliable
: > : >> : > than
: > : >> : > : the latter.
: > : >> : >
: > : >> : > Oh, so the latter break down at temperatures below 85°C because
: > : >> : > they are less reliable than the former cheaper ones... very
: > logical.
: > : >> : >
: > : >> :
: > : >> : How you managed to arrive at that conclusion is anyone's guess.
: > : >>
: > : >> It's quite simple. Here's a table, you like tables.
: > : >>
: > : >> ------------------- Former ------------------
: > Latter ----------------
: > : >> < 85°C reliable unreliable
: > : >> > 85°C unreliable reliable
: > : >> _____________________________________________
: > : >>
: > : >
: > : >Don't be pillock all your life, have a day off occasionally. I
neither
: > said
: > : >that nor inferred it. I stated that even when operated below 85°C,
: > : >capacitors rated at 85°C are more unreliable than those rated at
105°C.
: > : >
: > :
: > :
: > : With all due respect, are we on a crusade to prove who is right or to
: > : help the now confused OP ?? Do you think the OP gave up on us? I
: > : know at this point if I were him, I would have.
: >
: > If the OP doesn't have his answer by now he's in serious trouble.
: > This M.I.5¾ character seems to hallucinate that reliability is
: > a function of temperature without testing for failure rates
: > of 105°C rated capacitors at sub-zero temperatures, which
: > is the case for some military aircraft.
: >
:
: Thus proving beyond all reasonable doubt that you are imagining content in
: my posts that simply isn't there.
:
: I think the kill file beckons. Ah 'tis done.
Always nice to see a chicken shit duck out without proving his claim.
"However, even if operated below 85°C, the former type are considerably more
unreliable than the latter." - Chicken Shit "MI5" and a bit.
J
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
Read my post again, it seems you missed most of it.
M
M.I.5¾
Jupiter Jones said:
No I didn't.