[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: MMC cap preferences? (fwd)
- To: hvlist <hvlist@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: MMC cap preferences? (fwd)
- From: "High Voltage list" <hvlist@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 19:36:52 -0700 (MST)
- Delivered-to: hvarchiver@pupman.com
- Delivered-to: hvlist@poodle.pupman.com
- Old-return-path: <sroys@poodle.pupman.com>
- Resent-date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 19:36:53 -0700 (MST)
- Resent-from: hvlist@xxxxxxxxxx
- Resent-message-id: <WaSerD.A.UTB.Fd6MCB@poodle>
- Resent-sender: hvlist-request@xxxxxxxxxx
Original poster: <sroys@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 15:16:05 -0600
From: Steve Ward <steve.ward@xxxxxxxxx>
To: High Voltage list <hvlist@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: MMC cap preferences? (fwd)
>
> Hmm, Ross Overstreet says metallized film is better than metal foil
> due to its "self healing" properties. You and Terry say that metal
> foil is better due to increased current capability.
>
> So, who's right, or is this one of those religious arguments that may
> never be settled?
Metal foil caps do also contain metalized film!! The capacitor is
made up of 2 dialectrics in series (sorta like 2 caps in series). The
foil caps have: foil - PP - metalized PP - PP - foil. In the event of
a failure, the metalized part is totally blasted away, and the cap is
fine again.
I also personally have had much success with the CDE caps on all of my coils.
Steve Ward.