Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: tantalum caps was emc success
Posted by
Jeff Barlow
on 2000-11-20 18:56:01 UTC
On Tue, 21 Nov 2000 02:36:09 -0000, Wally wrote:
"properly designed circuit" for a foil electrolytic is not necessarily a
"properly designed circuit" for a tantalum. That is not a reason to
avoid tantalums, it just means be careful.
I think we've beat this to death, now.
Jeff
>I don't recall anyone saying there was. All I'm trying to say is that a
>The bottem line is there is no reason not to use a tantalum cap in a
>properly designed circuit.
"properly designed circuit" for a foil electrolytic is not necessarily a
"properly designed circuit" for a tantalum. That is not a reason to
avoid tantalums, it just means be careful.
I think we've beat this to death, now.
Jeff
Discussion Thread
ballendo@y...
2000-11-20 17:48:45 UTC
Re: tantalum caps was emc success
Mariss Freimanis
2000-11-20 18:12:18 UTC
Re: tantalum caps was emc success
Jeff Barlow
2000-11-20 18:16:06 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: tantalum caps was emc success
Wally K
2000-11-20 18:21:22 UTC
Re: tantalum caps was emc success
Wally K
2000-11-20 18:36:13 UTC
Re: tantalum caps was emc success
Jeff Barlow
2000-11-20 18:56:01 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: tantalum caps was emc success
Jon Elson
2000-11-20 22:00:16 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: tantalum caps was emc success
ballendo@y...
2000-11-20 22:21:27 UTC
Re: Re: tantalum caps was emc success
Jon Elson
2000-11-21 21:46:36 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: Re: tantalum caps was emc success
Jeff Barlow
2000-11-22 08:02:55 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: Re: tantalum caps was emc success