On Sun, 05 May 2013 13:05:46 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:>On Sun, 05 May 2013 14:01:34 -0500, John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> >wrote:>>Ah, yes... >> >>The munificent Larkin gives away what he doesn't care about and then >>expects accolades and tears for his loss and his time on the cross. > >You're a moron, and a useless moron at that.--- Being a professional circuit designer and having posted a cornucopian abundance of _free_ electrical and electromechanical designs which performed perfectly according to the requirements and feedback of various querents, I say both of your name-calling rebukes are unfounded and vindictive. --->I care a lot about thermal design: >it dominates a lot of high-speed and precision electronics.--- Whoop-dee-doo... --->And what is that "accolades and tears" "time on the cross" nonsense about?--- Well, since you didn't initially pick up on that this thread was originally about ceramic capacitor capacitance tolerances varying widely for different dielectrics with varying DC voltages being impressed across them, my expectations are that, since you've tried to twist it to your own ends, anything more subtle than the original premise would seem to be lost on you, since you consider your agenda to be paramount. --->think it's fun to discover things, measure things, and share them and argue >about them; it makes the electronics better.--- That's only true, for you, as long as you think you're the force majeure. When it's been pointed out that you aren't, and that you've made an error, you'll go to any lengths to try to rescind the comment. I've found errors in textbooks and references which I've posted here, but, instead of congratulations, you issue insults. Why is that? --->>Methinks you've been hoodwinked. > >And I think you are a useless, crabby old hen who has almost nothing to say >about electronics design, thermal design, component behavior. > >Do some real electronics and quit cluck-clucking about personalities. It might >make you less crabby. > >How's that Variac experiment coming along? Gonna share it with us soon?--- Maybe... My -- JF
Crapacitors
Started by ●May 2, 2013
Reply by ●May 6, 20132013-05-06
Reply by ●May 7, 20132013-05-07
On Thu, 2 May 2013 18:29:46 -0700 (PDT), George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> wrote:>On May 2, 5:45=A0pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote: >> On May 2, 4:32=A0pm, Cydrome Leader <prese...@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote: >> >> > dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote: >> > > 4.7uF 6.3V X5R >> > > dC =3D -70% @ 6VDC (!!) >> > > ==A0http://psearch.murata.com/capacitor/product/GRM188R60J475ME19%23.pdf>> >> > > James >> >> > that is pretty bad, but not a murata issue, vishas has a short doc =on>> > MLCCs >> >> >http://www.vishay.com/docs/40144/capchange.pdf >> >> Yep, it's a matter of high dielectric constant materials. =A0Standard >> for Z5U[*], unexpected for X7R-types. The subject carpacitor(tm) was >> X5R, but looks more like Z5U than X7R. >> >> I'm looking at a few mfrs' offerings to see if anyone's dielectric is >> better... >> >> =(*)(e.g.http://www.yageo.com/documents/recent/UPY-GPHC_Y5V_6.3V-to-50V_5.= pdf)>> >> -- >> Cheers, >> James Arthur > >Well as you know the X5/7 spec is just the tempco. Anything goes with >the V spec I guess. buyer beware and all that.... > >Thanks for the 'heads up' > >George H.That's right. I remember testing some C0G/NPO capacitors with a hellish voltage degradation about 35 years ago. Like 30-35% reduction at 400 V(dc) bias. The tempco had to be less than 30 PPM across seven temperatures at 0 V(dc) bias, and not much looser with 400 V(dc) bias.=20 I screwed up a batch of testing, and was given a serious discussion about data integrity. ?-)
Reply by ●May 7, 20132013-05-07
On Thu, 02 May 2013 17:54:47 -0700, John Larkin <jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:>On Thu, 02 May 2013 18:29:42 -0500, John Fields ><jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote: > >>On Thu, 02 May 2013 15:05:54 -0700, John Larkin >><jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote: >> >>>On Thu, 2 May 2013 12:31:43 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com >>>wrote: >>> >>>>4.7uF 6.3V X5R >>>>dC =3D -70% @ 6VDC (!!) >>>> =http://psearch.murata.com/capacitor/product/GRM188R60J475ME19%23.pdf>>>> >>>>James >>> >>>It's like a tantalum cap rated for X volts, with recommendation to >>>never use it at X volts. >>> >>>(I actually use tantalum caps at rated voltage *if* there's not much >>>charging current available. Otherwise, X/3 is about right.) >> >>--- >>Actually, I think what's being commented on is the unexpected >>tolerance of the capacitance of the cap rather than the cap's >>likelihood of failure as a function of charging current/terminal >>voltage.=20 > >What we're talking about is whether you can, in real life situations, >actually use an X volt rated cap at X volts. >No. JL. You intentionally overgeneralized it from MLCC capacitor voltage coefficient in order to post something, however irrelevant. Raging Narccissist. ?-/
Reply by ●May 7, 20132013-05-07
On Fri, 03 May 2013 23:40:10 +0200, Jeroen <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:>On 2013-05-03 23:23, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote: >> On May 3, 3:39 pm, John Larkin <jlar...@highlandtechnology.com> wrote: >>> On Fri, 3 May 2013 07:30:44 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> On May 3, 6:14 am, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> =wrote:>>>>> On Thu, 02 May 2013 17:54:47 -0700, John Larkin wrote: >>> >>>>> As for the caps themselves, it seems lemonade could be made from >>>>> lemons in that some use could be made of the parametric quality of =the>>>>> dielectric. For instance, that of a tuning element in an =oscillator.>>> >>>>> Or, perhaps, a voltage tunable filter? >>> >>>>> A modulator? >>> >>>>> An attenuator? >>> >>>>> But - in your quest for beauty and truth - I'm sure you've already >>>>> thought of those, at least, but remained silent for some good =reason>>>>> beyond the reach of the rest of us mere mortals. >>> >>>> No, actually, John suggested a parametric oscillator and several =other>>>> applications. >>> >>>> =e.g.https://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.design/msg/1257d50b73= ...>>> >>> I still haven't decided whether it's possible to make an unpumped >>> oscillator based on "negative capacitance" C:V behavior. It's =probably>>> impossible since I don't think anyone has done it. I can maybe use >>> conservation of energy to prove it can't be done. Pumped parametric >>> amps and oscillators (using varicap diodes) are old hat; they were >>> more popular around 1960, when transistors were still slow. >>> >>> I did manage to sumulate a frequency divider of sorts, really a >>> subcycle parametric oscillator, based on the C:V curve of a diode. It >>> should work with a ceramic cap, too. But it's still pumped, not >>> self-oscillating. >>> >>> =https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/53724080/Circuits/Oscillators/Sub...>>> >>> This is a classic diode frequency multiplier, but it halves the >>> frequency instead of doubling it. Conversion efficiency is >>> impressively bad. >>=20 >> Yes, very impressively bad. Looks like fodder for a green grant--it >> could be sooo much better with just a little invest-mint(tm). > >No one said it was useful for energy conversion. > >It's interesting, because normally non-linearity will only produce >harmonics, multiples, of the input frequency. This one also produces >sub-harmonics, at half the frequency in this case, just using a >single passive non-linear element. > >There is an optical domain equivalent gadget that fascinates the >quantum theory crowd since quite some time already. It also has >an impressively poor conversion efficiency: A BBO crystal. >I've been looking for a simple passive circuit with similar >behaviour. This appears to qualify. > >Jeroen BellemanWow, but the half frequency output is soo poor. I think i can do better. If i can figure it properly the ouput waveform will be much better and i won't need a VCVS to "hide" an required amplifier to get it to be barely usable. ?-)
Reply by ●May 7, 20132013-05-07
On Mon, 06 May 2013 21:39:42 -0700, josephkk <joseph_barrett@sbcglobal.net> wrote:>On Fri, 03 May 2013 23:40:10 +0200, Jeroen <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote: > >>On 2013-05-03 23:23, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote: >>> On May 3, 3:39 pm, John Larkin <jlar...@highlandtechnology.com> wrote: >>>> On Fri, 3 May 2013 07:30:44 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On May 3, 6:14 am, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote: >>>>>> On Thu, 02 May 2013 17:54:47 -0700, John Larkin wrote: >>>> >>>>>> As for the caps themselves, it seems lemonade could be made from >>>>>> lemons in that some use could be made of the parametric quality of the >>>>>> dielectric. For instance, that of a tuning element in an oscillator. >>>> >>>>>> Or, perhaps, a voltage tunable filter? >>>> >>>>>> A modulator? >>>> >>>>>> An attenuator? >>>> >>>>>> But - in your quest for beauty and truth - I'm sure you've already >>>>>> thought of those, at least, but remained silent for some good reason >>>>>> beyond the reach of the rest of us mere mortals. >>>> >>>>> No, actually, John suggested a parametric oscillator and several other >>>>> applications. >>>> >>>>> e.g.https://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.design/msg/1257d50b73... >>>> >>>> I still haven't decided whether it's possible to make an unpumped >>>> oscillator based on "negative capacitance" C:V behavior. It's probably >>>> impossible since I don't think anyone has done it. I can maybe use >>>> conservation of energy to prove it can't be done. Pumped parametric >>>> amps and oscillators (using varicap diodes) are old hat; they were >>>> more popular around 1960, when transistors were still slow. >>>> >>>> I did manage to sumulate a frequency divider of sorts, really a >>>> subcycle parametric oscillator, based on the C:V curve of a diode. It >>>> should work with a ceramic cap, too. But it's still pumped, not >>>> self-oscillating. >>>> >>>> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/53724080/Circuits/Oscillators/Sub... >>>> >>>> This is a classic diode frequency multiplier, but it halves the >>>> frequency instead of doubling it. Conversion efficiency is >>>> impressively bad. >>> >>> Yes, very impressively bad. Looks like fodder for a green grant--it >>> could be sooo much better with just a little invest-mint(tm). >> >>No one said it was useful for energy conversion. >> >>It's interesting, because normally non-linearity will only produce >>harmonics, multiples, of the input frequency. This one also produces >>sub-harmonics, at half the frequency in this case, just using a >>single passive non-linear element. >> >>There is an optical domain equivalent gadget that fascinates the >>quantum theory crowd since quite some time already. It also has >>an impressively poor conversion efficiency: A BBO crystal. >>I've been looking for a simple passive circuit with similar >>behaviour. This appears to qualify. >> >>Jeroen Belleman > >Wow, but the half frequency output is soo poor. I think i can do better. >If i can figure it properly the ouput waveform will be much better and i >won't need a VCVS to "hide" an required amplifier to get it to be barely >usable.I didn't hide the amp: it's in plain sight. It just let me probe the input and output on the same scale and see both. And I never claimed that it was usable!> >?-)As I said, I only did that to show that it could be done. I'd expect a voltage gain from input frequency to f/2 to be closer to 1 than 0.001, with a juicy nonlinear cap and some tweaking. Does anybody have an LT Spice script that includes the sort of grossly nonlinear cap that we've been discussing here? -- John Larkin Highland Technology Inc www.highlandtechnology.com jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com Precision electronic instrumentation Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators Custom timing and laser controllers Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links VME analog, thermocouple, LVDT, synchro, tachometer Multichannel arbitrary waveform generators
Reply by ●May 7, 20132013-05-07
On Mon, 06 May 2013 21:05:15 -0700, josephkk <joseph_barrett@sbcglobal.net> wrote:>On Thu, 02 May 2013 17:54:47 -0700, John Larkin ><jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote: > >>On Thu, 02 May 2013 18:29:42 -0500, John Fields >><jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote: >> >>>On Thu, 02 May 2013 15:05:54 -0700, John Larkin >>><jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote: >>> >>>>On Thu, 2 May 2013 12:31:43 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com >>>>wrote: >>>> >>>>>4.7uF 6.3V X5R >>>>>dC = -70% @ 6VDC (!!) >>>>> http://psearch.murata.com/capacitor/product/GRM188R60J475ME19%23.pdf >>>>> >>>>>James >>>> >>>>It's like a tantalum cap rated for X volts, with recommendation to >>>>never use it at X volts. >>>> >>>>(I actually use tantalum caps at rated voltage *if* there's not much >>>>charging current available. Otherwise, X/3 is about right.) >>> >>>--- >>>Actually, I think what's being commented on is the unexpected >>>tolerance of the capacitance of the cap rather than the cap's >>>likelihood of failure as a function of charging current/terminal >>>voltage. >> >>What we're talking about is whether you can, in real life situations, >>actually use an X volt rated cap at X volts. >> >No. JL. You intentionally overgeneralized it from MLCC capacitor voltage >coefficient in order to post something, however irrelevant. Raging >Narccissist.It would be a hell of a discussion group if nobody posted anything. -- John Larkin Highland Technology Inc www.highlandtechnology.com jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com Precision electronic instrumentation Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators Custom timing and laser controllers Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links VME analog, thermocouple, LVDT, synchro, tachometer Multichannel arbitrary waveform generators
Reply by ●May 7, 20132013-05-07
On 2013-05-07 06:39, josephkk wrote:> On Fri, 03 May 2013 23:40:10 +0200, Jeroen <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote: > >> On 2013-05-03 23:23, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote: >>> On May 3, 3:39 pm, John Larkin <jlar...@highlandtechnology.com> wrote: >>>> On Fri, 3 May 2013 07:30:44 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com >>>> wrote: >>>> I did manage to sumulate a frequency divider of sorts, really a >>>> subcycle parametric oscillator, based on the C:V curve of a diode. It >>>> should work with a ceramic cap, too. But it's still pumped, not >>>> self-oscillating. >>>> >>>> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/53724080/Circuits/Oscillators/Sub... >>>> >>>> This is a classic diode frequency multiplier, but it halves the >>>> frequency instead of doubling it. Conversion efficiency is >>>> impressively bad. >>> >>> Yes, very impressively bad. Looks like fodder for a green grant--it >>> could be sooo much better with just a little invest-mint(tm). >> >> No one said it was useful for energy conversion. >> >> It's interesting, because normally non-linearity will only produce >> harmonics, multiples, of the input frequency. This one also produces >> sub-harmonics, at half the frequency in this case, just using a >> single passive non-linear element. >> >> Jeroen Belleman > > Wow, but the half frequency output is soo poor. I think i can do better. > If i can figure it properly the ouput waveform will be much better and i > won't need a VCVS to "hide" an required amplifier to get it to be barely > usable. > > ?-) >Please do. That would be interesting. Jeroen Belleman
Reply by ●May 7, 20132013-05-07
On Mon, 06 May 2013 22:26:54 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:>On Mon, 06 May 2013 21:05:15 -0700, josephkk <joseph_barrett@sbcglobal.net> >wrote: > >>On Thu, 02 May 2013 17:54:47 -0700, John Larkin >><jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote: >> >>>On Thu, 02 May 2013 18:29:42 -0500, John Fields >>><jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote: >>> >>>>On Thu, 02 May 2013 15:05:54 -0700, John Larkin >>>><jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Thu, 2 May 2013 12:31:43 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com >>>>>wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>4.7uF 6.3V X5R >>>>>>dC = -70% @ 6VDC (!!) >>>>>> http://psearch.murata.com/capacitor/product/GRM188R60J475ME19%23.pdf >>>>>> >>>>>>James >>>>> >>>>>It's like a tantalum cap rated for X volts, with recommendation to >>>>>never use it at X volts. >>>>> >>>>>(I actually use tantalum caps at rated voltage *if* there's not much >>>>>charging current available. Otherwise, X/3 is about right.) >>>> >>>>--- >>>>Actually, I think what's being commented on is the unexpected >>>>tolerance of the capacitance of the cap rather than the cap's >>>>likelihood of failure as a function of charging current/terminal >>>>voltage. >>> >>>What we're talking about is whether you can, in real life situations, >>>actually use an X volt rated cap at X volts. >>> >>No. JL. You intentionally overgeneralized it from MLCC capacitor voltage >>coefficient in order to post something, however irrelevant. Raging >>Narccissist. > >It would be a hell of a discussion group if nobody posted anything.--- And that justifies your posting nonsense just to keep yourself in the limelight? -- JF
Reply by ●May 7, 20132013-05-07
On Tue, 07 May 2013 15:26:41 -0500, John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:>On Mon, 06 May 2013 22:26:54 -0700, John Larkin ><jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>On Mon, 06 May 2013 21:05:15 -0700, josephkk <joseph_barrett@sbcglobal.net> >>wrote: >> >>>On Thu, 02 May 2013 17:54:47 -0700, John Larkin >>><jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote: >>> >>>>On Thu, 02 May 2013 18:29:42 -0500, John Fields >>>><jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Thu, 02 May 2013 15:05:54 -0700, John Larkin >>>>><jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On Thu, 2 May 2013 12:31:43 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com >>>>>>wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>4.7uF 6.3V X5R >>>>>>>dC = -70% @ 6VDC (!!) >>>>>>> http://psearch.murata.com/capacitor/product/GRM188R60J475ME19%23.pdf >>>>>>> >>>>>>>James >>>>>> >>>>>>It's like a tantalum cap rated for X volts, with recommendation to >>>>>>never use it at X volts. >>>>>> >>>>>>(I actually use tantalum caps at rated voltage *if* there's not much >>>>>>charging current available. Otherwise, X/3 is about right.) >>>>> >>>>>--- >>>>>Actually, I think what's being commented on is the unexpected >>>>>tolerance of the capacitance of the cap rather than the cap's >>>>>likelihood of failure as a function of charging current/terminal >>>>>voltage. >>>> >>>>What we're talking about is whether you can, in real life situations, >>>>actually use an X volt rated cap at X volts. >>>> >>>No. JL. You intentionally overgeneralized it from MLCC capacitor voltage >>>coefficient in order to post something, however irrelevant. Raging >>>Narccissist. >> >>It would be a hell of a discussion group if nobody posted anything. > >--- >And that justifies your posting nonsense just to keep yourself in the >limelight?What's nonsense about using a capacitor's nonlinearity to build a parametric frequency divider? A few people here seem to have liked it. This thread started with capacitor nonlinearity. Where is your promised high-frequency Variac study? Can you actually do anything but whine? -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com http://www.highlandtechnology.com Precision electronic instrumentation Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators Custom laser drivers and controllers Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links VME thermocouple, LVDT, synchro acquisition and simulation
Reply by ●May 7, 20132013-05-07
On Sun, 05 May 2013 13:05:46 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:>And I think you are a useless, crabby old hen--- Sexist, yes??? Why am I not surprised? Because a diminutive creature like you, who's always been surrounded by, and criticized by women must, of course, liken his present-day critics to his early-on detractors. --->who has almost nothing to say about electronics design, thermal design, component behavior.--- Geez, over the years I've addressed all of those kinds of problems and have come up with answers which satisfied the querents. Just check my posting history for veracity... --->Do some real electronics and quit cluck-clucking about personalities. It might >make you less crabby.--- So, I've done no real electronics and less crabby is better for you? Sounds like what you're saying is: "Get out of my face.", since you don't want to admit to ever having made an error WRT circuit design. --->How's that Variac experiment coming along? Gonna share it with us soon?--- Maybe... My shop kitty, Monty, insists on petting intervals to break up the day. -- JF
