Talk:Aluminum electrolytic capacitor

	Engineering portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Electrical engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Electrical engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Electrical engineeringWikipedia:WikiProject Electrical engineeringTemplate:WikiProject Electrical engineeringelectrical engineering articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Electronics Mid‑importance

	Electronics portal This article is part of WikiProject Electronics, an attempt to provide a standard approach to writing articles about electronics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Leave messages at the project talk pageElectronicsWikipedia:WikiProject ElectronicsTemplate:WikiProject Electronicselectronic articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Electrolyte leakage and clean-up

I suggest that a section should be added to cover what to do after electrolyte has leaked. Many Web sources do not offer appropriate means. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.101.35 (talk) 20:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Capacitor behavior after storage or disuse

This section needs some work as it repeats quite a lot from the history section, makes a number of un-cited statements and improper sentence structuring and grammar. Maybe bullet points of each successive improvement over time and why they affected capacity after storage. The last two paragraphs seem relevant. NameloCmaS (talk) 23:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it! --Wtshymanski (talk) 01:43, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge of SAL electrolytic capacitor

Wtshymanski has tagged SAL electrolytic capacitor for merging here. He, surely accidentally, forgot to tag this article, so editors may be unaware of this merge proposal.

oppose Why not merge tantalum capacitor too? They're all electrolytics, SALs have no more in common with wet electrolytics than tants do. Especially not in their applications, more than their construction. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am the main author of all electrolytic capacitor articles. My suggestion to write the SAL article is, that this capacitors are at the end of their life cycles. To put them into an electrolytic capacitor article with high innovation and powerful development upgrades the SAL caps. Maybe in some years the SAL technology is history, than I add a according remark. I delete the merging banner. --Elcap (talk) 13:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand you. What are you trying to say? --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OWN.--Wtshymanski (talk) 15:50, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Should the lead include the fact that the anode foil is etched or, as Wtshymanski has now repeatedly removed [1] [2] [3] [4], not?

This is not, as he describes it "wordy", but is the fundamental distinction of an electrolytic capacitor. It is essential in the lead.

An electrolytic capacitor's virtue arises from the use of etching the plates to increase their surface area, thus the capacitance. As a result, an electrolyte is also used to maintain contact with this convoluted surface. However it's the use of etching, not the liquid electrolyte, that conveys the benefit. We need this in the lead, multiple editors, myself included, have restored it. Wtshymanksi (yet again) insists that it goes because only he knows anything. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a trivial structural detail. It would still be an "electrolytic capacitor" if you mirror polished the electrodes and then immersed it. It wouldn't be a commercially successful way of making an electrolytic capacitor, but it would still be one. First give the physical principle in the lead and then expand on it at bewildering and foggy length in the body of the article, when we can expound on anodes, cathodes, metallurgy, market share, and the color of the front bezel. We don't need to sputter like a cat lady in the first sentence of an article. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't edited this to be concise, you've edited it to take out one of the most important words of all.

You can, I'm sure, give examples of these unetched electrolytic capacitors. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And yet they are called "electrolytic" capacitors, not "etched". --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The original article was written in a high leven of technical competence. Wtshimansky, will you please do not destroy the technical level with phrases like "wordy". --Elcap (talk) 10:11, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An encyclopedia article must be concise. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:21, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, every article has to be: firstly: correct, secondly: complete!
In the second sentence of the introduction you change my text and wrote:
The use of a thin aluminum foil electrode , etched to increase its surface area, gives electrolytic capacitors large capacitance values per unit volume compared to ceramic capacitors and film capacitors, but smaller capacitance than similar sized supercapacitors.
That is wrong, a mistake. The large capacitance values of e-caps compared to other static capacitors comes from 1) the very thin oxide dielectric and 2) from enlarging the anode surface by etching. Both together makes capacitance values higher than the other conventional capacitors.

What I want to say is, that you make mistakes while changing only to reduce the text volume. You can help in correct the grammar mistakes I made as a German. --Elcap (talk) 14:53, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Aluminum electrolytic capacitor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130806054025/http://www.avx.com:80/docs/techinfo/soltant.pdf to http://www.avx.com/docs/techinfo/soltant.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:19, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Duplication of content

Most of this article is duplicated at Electrolytic capacitor. This article should be about aluminum capacitors only and leave the common stuff to the parent article. --Wtshymanski (talk) 01:28, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you dont see the differences, f. e. in the tables, you should not act as an editor.--Elcap (talk) 07:37, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But there's so much overlap. If we need an article separate from electrolytic capacitor at all, then this article should concentrate on the peculiarities of the aluminum variety and not repeat every last line from the more inclusive article as well.

Could you please explain what ever *this* block of words was supposed to be saying, as it sounds like what was left after 40% of the source text was mistranslated:

All electrolytic capacitors have one special advantage. Because the forming voltage defines the oxide layer thickness, the voltage proof of the later electrolytic capacitor can be produced very simply for the desired rated value, the so-called "CV-Volume". That makes electrolytic capacitors suitable for uses down to 2 V applications in which other capacitor technologies must adhere to much higher limits.

There are clauses that look OK, but the overall effect is like a train derailment. What "much higher limits" ? "later electrolytic..." - later than what? This needs fixing. The article is prolix and reads very strangely. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:47, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--Wtshymanski (talk) 15:47, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The table of styles made by different makers is pretty much parts catalog material - fun to type in, but Wikipedia is not supposed to be an indiscriminate collection. This is why we don't type in bus station timetables, for example, when writing about mass transit. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:00, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For my understanding all Wiki articles must have a "stand alone" function.

May be the "block" is a little bit the view of an expert. How sounds this:

All electrolytic capacitors have one special advantage. Because the forming voltage defines the oxide layer thickness, the voltage proof of the later electrolytic capacitor can be produced very simply for the desired working voltage. That makes the specific “CV-value” of e-caps, the product of capacitance and voltage more effective than for capacitors in other technologies, because ceramic as well as plastic films have larger maladjusted dimensions especially for lower voltages needed for digital circuits. --Elcap (talk) 08:41, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles aren't supposed to stand alone! Otherwise we would only have one article The sum total of human knowledge to date. Links are your friend - if there's a fascinating aside that would take 5000 characters to explain in-line, but is really fine focussed and not necessary in an overview, then spin it out into a linked article.

The rephrase still loses me. Could you be saying All electrolytic capacitors have an advantage over other types, in that the forming voltage during manufacture defines the oxide layer thickness and so the voltage rating of the finished capacitor. ...... No, wait, still makes no sense. The high CV product is because of thin oxide dielectric and rough surfaces, compared with other capacitors (as we say more than once in the article). It's nothing to do with the forming process except as far as making that thin oxide film. "Maladjusted" is just not idiomatic here and has entirely the wrong connotations. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:30, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Aluminum electrolytic capacitor. 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: 5 June 2024).

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) 01:55, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Specific power

The article says that aluminum capacitors have greater power density (presumably meaning specific power as distinct from volumetric power density) than ultrapacitors. But this is meaningless without some idea of whether they're 50% better, ten times better, or what. Vaughan Pratt (talk) 18:34, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]