Talk:Capacitor types

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

earlier discussions moved to talk:capacitor (component)/archive#1


Ultracapacitors[edit]

There is no justification for defining ultracapacitors as being different from supercapacitors, the terms are use intechangably in the literature. As this now appears to make a distintion between then I suggest that the passage be removed. However if someone has objectios to that please comment here, and we will sort this out. DV8 2XL 02:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, merge the two paras together explaining the similarity of the 2 terms.--Light current 15:17, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Split please[edit]

Since the previous discussion appears to be prematurely archived, I will restart it (again).

This article needs to be split back up into separate articles about each different type of capacitor. The rest of the information should be moved back to the capacitor article. This article title can then redirect back to capacitor.

Creating giant articles that conglomerate anything vaguely related to the title is not Wikipedia style. — Omegatron 21:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I dont have objections to splitting in principle as long as all different capacitor types can be easily reached from this page in the first instance. How many pages are you thinking of splitting it into? After any splitting, we can see what we have left here and decide what to do with the remains at that time. No need for haste!
BTW I dont really agree that this page is too big, but if others think it would benefit from splitting then so be it.--Light current 03:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think things are fine for now. DV8 2XL 03:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The page is only 33kb and can probably be shortened to 32kb if not 30kb with some careful concision editing. I don't think it needs to be split; all types of capacitors are capacitors, this entire article is still on the same topic.
If this page ever gets too long, then even if pages are created for each type, it's still fair to keep this as a summary page, with main article links and the like.
The template's been there for over a month and nothing seems to have been down about it. It needs to be removed if it is resolved not to split it, at least for now.
(I know I'm not a regular editor of this article and because I don't know much about capacitors I won't contribute, but I'm happy to copyedit it to fully merge it properly, if necessary.) Neonumbers 10:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
all types of capacitors are capacitors
Yet you want to keep capacitor and capacitor (component) separate? — Omegatron 02:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I never said that. I told you I'm not a regular editor of this page. Here was me thinking capacitor was a disambiguation page... how did I ever get here? I could swear, I found this page through playing around with disambiguation pages... hmm... I've confused myself... I was wondering where the overall discussion on its working were, too; it must've been a really late night... but that post was at 11:39pm local time! (shakes head vigourously to regain orientation)
Anyway, this is what I think:
This page should be split if, and only if, there is more to write on each capacitor type. I don't know whether there is or not, I really don't.
If you are confident that more will be written, then by all means, go ahead. To be honest, I don't think anyone will revert it, and no-one seems to have strong objections, rather, just satisfaction with the status quo.
If it is resolved not to split the page, the notice must be removed. That's meant to be a temporary notice. Neonumbers 04:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the sections of the Electrical characteristics section that discuss general electrical behavior of capacitors should be moved off of this page. Most should probably go to the Non-ideal behavior section of the main Capacitor page. The main page is quite deficient in it's discussion of the non-ideal behavior of capacitors and would benefit from this merger. Pulu (talk) 09:22, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ELCO[edit]

ELCO redirects here, but is not mentioned in the text. Could someone add it in the appropriate place? Is it an electrolytic capacitator? Piet 10:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Preferred values[edit]

The article includes a section about E3, E6, E12 preferred values, and this duplicates information in a separate article called Preferred number (also redirected from Preferred values). It seems to me some of the text under Capacitors (component) could be removed. I have put a link to the Preferred number article, but I leave it to someone else to decide how much to take out. It is worth leaving in some of the historic discussion I think, and also the discussion of the wide tolerance of some capacitor types which is why the E3 or E6 values are used.Sangwine 19:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is polarisation considered an advantage?[edit]

I have always experienced it as a nuisance, but in the table of types, it is listed as an advantage of electrolytic capacitors. - douglas bagnall

Changed table hdg to Features instead of Advantages.--Light current 15:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't help. Still a positive spin, and now it seems odd to have "Features" vs "Disadvantages" instead of the more usual "Advantages" vs "Disadvantages". I'd vote for polarization to be moved from "Advantages" to "Disadvantages" unless some direct advantage to polarization can be pointed out. It seems to me to be a necessary nuisance- the advantage is not the polarization but rather the lower cost that results from its use. --Treekids (talk) 15:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page says "Available in both polarized and unpolarized varieties", but Tantalum_capacitor says "All tantalum capacitors are polarized devices". Which is right? CLandau (talk) 17:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Capacitor AC[edit]

The simplest way to drive an LED from line-voltage AC is with a large series resistor, which functions as a current source. Very inefficient, due to power loss in the resistor.

We could also drop line voltage to a low voltage to drive an LED with an AC capacitor. We can calculate power in the capacitor by V x A, but the result is not real watts - the answer is ideally all "imaginary" VA? In the real world, how do we calculate power dissipation in real capacitors used thus: how hot they would get, what would be safe design, etc? For example, if two LEDs are anti-parallel, and you want the total average current through the pair to be 20 mA, from a series capacitor, at 120 VAC, what capacitance is needed, what capacitor types would be appropriate, and would power issues in the capacitor be a concern?-69.87.204.197 13:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 69.87.204.197 . Yes, some people replace the transformer in a voltage regulator with a capacitor -- using a "Transformerless Power Supply".
We have (hot 120V) -- (capacitor) -- (small voltage) -- (neutral 120 V).
Using Ohm's law, V = IZ, I get that we want a capacitor with a Z =
Z = V/I = (120 V - small voltage) / 20 mA ~= 6000 jOhm.
Using the capacitor#Impedance formula , and assuming you're in the f = 60 Hz part of the world, I calculate that I want a capacitor with C =
~= 0.4 µF.
As you already guessed, we can't just use *any* 0.4 µF capacitor.
You also want the capacitor to have:
* non-polarized
* voltage rating higher than any expected input voltage
* ripple current rating higher than the actual ripple current.
The power dissipated in a capacitor is , where R is the equivalent series resistance of the capacitor. If you pick a capacitor with a (relatively bad) ESR of 5 Ohms, then that capacitor would dissipate P = (20 mA)^2 (5 Ohms) = 2 mW.
A real transformerless power supply also includes a fuse and at least one zener and perhaps a transorb -- without them, spikes in the input power would destroy the LEDs. See http://massmind.org/techref/power/actodc.htm for details. --68.0.124.33 (talk) 18:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

The link to images is good (when it works), except that it only has current pics, no historic -- but it would be much better to have such little example images in the article itself. I'm sorry not to see images anywhere of the old six-dot mica packages.-69.87.199.150 13:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this article desperately needs pictures illustrating each type of capacitor --UltraMagnusspeak 18:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Polarity[edit]

The section on marking should acknowledge polarity as an issue, and mention ways it is marked.-69.87.199.150 13:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erron in table "Fixed capacitor comparisons" (Alternating current oil-filled Capacitors)[edit]

"Alternating current oil-filled Capacitors" uses "Oil-impregnated paper" as dielectric. But in features: "Usually PET or polypropylene film dielectric." ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vladislav Pogorelov (talk • contribs) 03:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removed copypaste tag[edit]

I removed the copypaste tag. The Semec Web page claims a copyright of 2008, the table here has been in the article since the glory days of User:Light Current in 2005. This table is more comprehensive than the entries at the target Web page. Edits such as [1] adding a phrase about RF properties of polystyrene capacitors, more than a year after the page was created and two years before the copyright date on the target Web page, make me confident that the copypaste material was taken from Wikipedia, not added to it. --Wtshymanski (talk) 00:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are right. I felt the opposite. To me it seemed more likely that a Wikipedia user copied all of Semec's table and integrated it into the Wikipedia article, rather than Semec selectively copying some of the Wikipedia table and integrating it into their page. However the copyright date *is* 2008 on the Semec page, and that is convincing along with the added phrase, so I won't add the copypaste back without further evidence. --JAC4 (talk) 03:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New revised article[edit]

Hi, a lot of work is done, now the revised article is ready. The old article Types of capacitor contains a lot of discrepancies, f. e.

Under the sub-header “Types of dielectric” a lot of different things are mixed. It contains

  • general dielectric materials like: Air-gap, Ceramic, Glass, Paper, Vacuum,
  • detailed dielectric materials like: C0G, NP0, X7R, X8R, Polycarbonate, Polyester, Polystyrene, Polypropylene, PTFE or Teflon
  • capacitor types like: Electrolytic capacitors, Polymer capacitors, Trimmer, Double-layer capacitors,
  • “home-made” capacitors like: Gimmick, Printed circuit board,
  • very special customized types like: integrated circuits,

The sequence of the capacitor types in the table “Fixed capacitor comparisons” are not methodic, f. e. Paper, Metallized paper and Alternating current oil-filled capacitors as well as Direct current oil-filled and Kraft capacitor paper belong together. Additional capacitor types and application capacitor names are mixed.

Especially the comments to paper capacitors sounds like written in the 1950th and are old fashioned and partly obsolete.

Under the sub-header “Non-ideal properties of practical capacitors” some properties are described, which are standardized and in datasheets specified as “rated values”.

In the new edition of this article I have tried to follow strictly the industrial and the standardized view of the most important industrial produced capacitors. Greetings --Elcap (talk) 09:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedit[edit]

Copyedited this. Feedback encouraged! Comments:

  • My main comment is the lack of clarity implicit in the definition of "type". It creates the impression of a hodge podge. E.g., the comparison table has one column for both features and apps.

:1) I take the definition for "type" from IEC 60384-1: typea group of components having similar design features and the similarity of whose manufacturing techniques enables them to be grouped together either for qualification approval or for quality conformance inspection

:2) I take this title "features and apps" from the precursor table.

  • The difference between a "type" and an "application" remains blurry. Repeated, e.g., in Types of capacitors#Electrolytic it talks of "Electolytic capacitors for special applications" followed by a list of what look like applications, rather than types: Motor start, Flashlight and Audio frequency. If these are truly types rather than uses of electrolytic capacitors in various applications, then something other than the application evidently distinguishes them and should be explained.

: Motor start, Flashlight and Audio frequency are special applications and some series of electrolytic capacitors are special designed for these applications wearing names like “Electrolytic capacitors for audio applications”, if you want I can give datasheet references

  • No discharge current range is specified for class 4 supercapacitors.

: sorry,I forgot this, here the specified values out of IEC 62391-1

  • Class 1, Memory backup, discharge current in mA = 1 • C (F)
  • Class 2, Energy storage, discharge current in mA = 0,4 • C (F) • V (V)
  • Class 3, Power, discharge current in mA = 4 • C (F) • V (V)
  • Class 4, Instantaneous power, discharge current in mA = 40 • C (F) • V (V)

:added in the meantime

  • Comparison table would be better with quantified parameters, rather than "high" "very high", etc.

:This table has a precursor , many “highs” have “survived”. A high for prices to specify is impossible.

  • Including dielectric as a separate column (but not electrode, etc.) seems to imply that dielectric is the type variable, which I don't think is intended.

:The dielectric is characteristic of a capacitor type (or family) not the electrodes for conventional capacitors. For supercapacitors it is different.

  • The term "non solid (wet, liquid)" seems vague and redundant at the same time. If "liquid" is not acceptable, then clarification is in order.

:It is the “official” description of IEC "non solid" and add the common used terms "wet" or "liquid", please see paragraph "Standards"

  • The article uses the term "series equivalent". Equivalent to what?

:Sorry, ESR is described in Wiki

  • Added some clarify tags.
  • Voltage proof needs to be defined.
More to come. Cheers. Lfstevens (talk) 02:29, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
some remarks added inbetween your questions. Regards --Elcap (talk) 10:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Lfstevens, first, thanks for correcting my German sounded English and streamling the text. But out of my opinion some deletions are going to far. F. e. capacitors are capacitors, writing "film" allone instead of "film capacitors" it seems to me like a mistake. Please accept, that I added "capacitor" in all tables.
One of my standard moves is to delete context when the context is obvious. That's why all the "capacitors" and "of the "capacitors" disappeared. If you're just going to add them back, I'll stop. I don't use the text to argue matters of style.
All your questions are wellcome. F. e. "voltage proof". Please where I have to give additional informations to this parameter.
Where it first appears.
regards --Elcap (talk) 18:10, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other terms that need definitions: end spray,

Application of metallic contact layer ("schoopage") — The projecting end electrodes are covered with a liquefied contact metal such as (tin, zinc or aluminum), which is sprayed with compressed air on both lateral ends of the winding. This metallizing process is named schoopage after Swiss engineer Max Schoop, who invented a combustion spray application for tin and lead. See ref [7] in Film capacitor or [2]

  • In "A "ripple current" is the RMS value of a superimposed AC current of any frequency and any waveform of the current curve", what is the wave form and what is the current curve?

The waveform is any you like. You have to calculate by Fourier analysis a waveform given from the application into the Root mean square [RMS] value, that is the “effective” value.

  • Recommend sticking with either K or C throughout.

Sorry, this question I don’t understand

  • In this context, is bipolar the same as non-polar?

bipolar is used for electrolytic capacitors with two anode foils in series connection makes a non-polar electrolytic capacitor, non-polar is used for film and ceramic capacitors are not polarized by their dielectric used

  • Don't understand this: "This DC current is represented by the resistor Rleak in parallel with the capacitor in the series-equivalent circuit of electrolytic capacitors." What does the "in parallel" imply?
Series-equivalent circuit model of a capacitor

Sorry, if you don’t understand a series-equivalent circuit I can’t help you. Basics of understanding electronic circuits is something you have to have if you want to understand capacitors.

  • Need a shorthand/abbreviation for "manganese oxide solid tantalum capacitors".

No, nothing exist something for Tantalum capacitors with solid electrolyte like “wet slug” for tantalum electrolytic capacitors with non solid electrolyte.

Still more to come. Lfstevens (talk) 20:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greatings --Elcap (talk) 08:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Clarification needed, questions and answers

Question 1: As modern electronic equipment gained the capacity to handle power levels that were previously the exclusive domain of "electrical power"[clarification needed] components, the distinction between the "electronic" and "electrical" power ratings blurred. Historically, the boundary between these two families was approximately at a reactive power of 200 volt-amps.

Answer: The boundary of app. 200VA is descended from the 1950s, 1960s. At this time the first fluorescent lamps (typical power 200VA) start to be a mass market. Because a lot of lamps would sold to the government, the industry, military it was typical an “electric” market. Since that times also the radio and later the TV market explode. This was and is an “electronic” market, because the customers are mostly private consumers. But as of 1990 and later the power electronic with Thyristors, GTO’s and other components coming from electronic manufacturers, gets higher and higher power handling. So as of 2000 latest the boundary between electric and electronic power rating blurred.

Question 2: Wet tantalum (wet slug) Lowest leakage among electrolytics. Voltage up to 630 V (tantalum film) or 125 V (tantalum sinter body). Hermetically sealed. Stable and reliable. Military and space applications.[clarification needed],

Answer: This capacitors are so expensive and other cheaper types like aluminum electrolytic, ceramic or film capacitors mostly can fulfill the same requirement, that only military remains as customer because this wet slug capacitors have military approvals

Question 3: Air gap tuning capacitors. For high professional devices.[clarification needed

Answer: May be you know some extremely expensive audio sets. For this “Bang & Olafson” devices air gap tunining capacitors with ball bearing axis are used.

Question 4: The temperature coefficient is expressed in parts per million (ppm) per degree Celsius for class 1 ceramic capacitors or in %[clarification needed] over the total temperature range for all others.

Answer: Definition regarding to IEC 60384-1

I delete all "clarification needed" remarks Greatings--Elcap (talk) 08:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

voltage proof[edit]

None of the capacitor datasheets I've read this week use the word "proof". Is "voltage proof" (used 8 times in this article) yet another synonym for "working voltage", "rated voltage", "operating voltage", "guaranteed voltage", "nominal voltage", "the voltage written on the capacitor", etc.? Would this article be easier to understand if we replaced "voltage proof" with one of those synonyms? --DavidCary (talk) 17:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IEC standard 62391-1 application classes[edit]

Class 1, Memory backup, discharge current in mA = 1 • C (F) Class 2, Energy storage, discharge current in mA = 0.4 • C (F) • V (V) Class 3, Power, discharge current in mA = 4 • C (F) • V (V) Class 4, Instantaneous power, discharge current in mA = 40 • C (F) • V (V)

Are these minimum requirements, typical values or what? And how come the diagram provided shows Class 4 range having a higher internal resistance than class 3? Ssscienccce (talk) 11:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please feel free and contact the standardization group for answering your questions --Elcap (talk) 20:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

3-terminal capacitors not mentioned[edit]

Missing from this article is the 3-terminal capacitor. They are extensively used these days for suppressing radio-frequency interference as they internally cancel out the effects of unwanted inductance and so can work well over 1GHz. Normal capacitors don't work much above 100MHz.

Here is an example data sheet: [[3]]

Although I use them, I don't have expert knowledge of this and I can't face the prospect of fighting any edit war that might arise if I try to put this in the article. But hopefully someone can. Man with two legs (talk) 16:05, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What it says in that section is either a different kind of capacitor or wrong. The three terminal capacitor has the outer two terminals shorted together and conducts unwanted RF to ground via the middle terminal. The point is they work at very much higher frequencies than normal capacitors (well over 1GHz while two-terminal capacitors don't work much over 100MHz). Man with two legs (talk) 12:55, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The 3-terminal capacitor, X2Y capacitor or feed-through capacitor, all these capacitors have the same function, which you have described correct in conducting unwanted HF noise to ground. With a little bit more fantasy you can combine the different styles to one functional picture. By the way, the frequency range is a question of inductance of the capacitor. SMD types filter higher frequencies than leaded types, that the reason for the succes of the X2Y capacitors. --Elcap (talk) 07:54, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
3-terminal capacitors leaded for through hole assembly also work above 1GHz while 2-terminal SMT capacitors don't work above 150MHz in my experience.
It would be a useful addition to the article to show properly what they are and how they work. Man with two legs (talk) 10:33, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This additional about freqency range I try to add to the article ceramic capacitor. Source: Three-terminal Capacitor Structure, Murata, [4] --Elcap (talk) 08:45, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just have added it to this article, too. --Elcap (talk) 08:51, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good! Man with two legs (talk) 09:13, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Capacitor types. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:55, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Capacitor types. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:30, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Concrete super capacitor[edit]

A cheap, new type of super capacitor has just been invented at MIT: https://newatlas.com/architecture/mit-concrete-supercapacitor Basvossen (talk) 01:02, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Capacitor_types&oldid=1200614570"