Tantalum or multilayer ceramic cap? - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / projects

author: arildj78
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2025, 10:11:19 pm
content: I need a simple 3.3V supply for my ESP32. I decided on the AMS1117-3.3 and are now looking at thedatasheetfor stability. It states that a 22uF tantalum on the output would do the trick. Since I don't have any concern for space or money, is there a good reason to choose a tantalum over a multilayer ceramic or vice versa for this application?On another note, once in a while I hear Dave or someone else talk crap about tantalums but I'm too unexperienced to really know how to interpret that. Are they to be avoided at all cost or were there a specific time period with bad caps?Arild

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2025, 10:24:08 pm
content: Quote from: arildj78 on January 28, 2025, 10:11:19 pmESR varies between types of capacitor. ESR affects the control loop stability; too low and it can oscillate.MLCC capacitance can be a strong function of voltage; 90% (!) reduction at rated voltage is possible.

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2025, 10:45:24 pm
content: The voltage rating for a MLCC capacitor (large capacitance with Class II dielectric) is the maximum safe (non-smoking) voltage, not necessarily the recommended operating voltage, due to the large voltage-induced drop in capacitance of the non-linear dielectric mentioned by tggzzz. If you use that type of capacitor to get a low ESR, you should use a part rated for substantially higher voltage than the actual working voltage.If the IC vendor asks for a tantalum capacitor it may well be unstable with the MLCC part and its low ESR.Tantalum capacitors also should have a higher voltage rating than the working voltage: see the manufacturer’s data sheet for recommendations.

author: arildj78
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2025, 11:01:22 pm
content: I'm considering a 25V 22uF MLCC for a 3.3V output. This is a "basic" part from JLCPCB's assembly service (i.e. basically free). They have only two tantalums as basic parts, one 10uF 16V and one 100uF 6.3V. Now my optimisation exercise leans toward a couple of 10uF tantalums or the 22uF MLCC. Based on the heat tantalums are getting in podcasts I'm listening to, I'm reluctant to go for the tantalums, even though the datasheet suggests it.https://jlcpcb.com/partdetail/46786-CL21A226MAQNNNE/C45783https://jlcpcb.com/parts/2nd/Capacitors/Tantalum_Capacitors_2930?spm=search&searchTxt=tantalum

author: TimNJ
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2025, 11:10:09 pm
content: If you don't need high volumetric efficiency and/or don't have a restriction on component height, I don't see a strong reason to use them. Conflict materials, special attention needed to keep them happy, etc.Put two 1206 22uF caps in parallel, add 1 to 10 ohms in series with that.I know tantalums historically were used a lot in military/aerospace, and can be quite reliable with proper care. Not sure if that industry still uses tantalum heavily in new designs, or if MLCC has generally taken over.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2025, 11:13:38 pm
content: Which is more reliable? LLM spew, or a random body getting their egoboos by having people pay attention to them, or an engineering datasheet or application note from companies who make a product and want it to be used successfully?Or maybe you would like to give us a clue about the content and source and temperature of this "heat".

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2025, 11:23:23 pm
content: Quote from: arildj78 on January 28, 2025, 10:11:19 pmDoes the datasheet give any design guidance on what characteristics are needed for stability with ceramic caps?

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 28, 2025, 11:30:09 pm
content: Quote from: arildj78 on January 28, 2025, 10:11:19 pmI don't get why people still use these for new designs, there a heaps of newer and better LDO. They're outdated and have special capacitor requirements. MLCC is no go for these except a few rare 1117 which are 1117 in the name only but something quite different inside.

author: arildj78
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2025, 12:22:54 am
content: QuoteI'm trying to teach myself different things. When I do, I like giving myself constraints.This time I would like to design a motherboard for an ESP32 with assembly beeing done by JLCPCB and get it at cheap as possible while maintaining good design and understanding the design choices I make.

author: arildj78
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2025, 12:23:40 am
content: QuoteNo I couldn't see any. Feel free to educate me. Here's the datasheet.https://jlcpcb.com/api/file/downloadByFileSystemAccessId/8550724073479806976

author: arildj78
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2025, 12:27:01 am
content: Quote from: tggzzz on January 28, 2025, 11:13:38 pmThe heat is random comments from Chris and Dave on The Amp Hour. I'm not able to quote a show number, but I fairly confident that it was somewhere between show number #127 and #613.

author: arildj78
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2025, 12:28:47 am
content: Quote from: tggzzz on January 28, 2025, 11:13:38 pmWell, I don't have an educated opinion on which one to choose because I don't know the factors affecting the choice. That's why I'm asking for advice

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2025, 01:07:19 am
content: Quote from: arildj78 on January 29, 2025, 12:28:47 amPart of being able to operate in the 21st century is having decent heuristics as to which types of sources are more likely to be trustworthy. Heuristic: LLMs are good at assembling sentences from words which are frequently seen together, - without understand the concepts. Humans who do that are called bullshitters.When I was growing up the key skill was to be able to obtain a source of information and then take the time to extract every nuance from it. Nowadays it is precisely the opposite: the key skill is knowing how to quickly which sources of information should be ignored (most of them) thus leaving time to concentrate on good sources.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2025, 02:25:39 am
content: Quote from: arildj78 on January 29, 2025, 12:23:40 amSo you want everyone else to find evidence to support your proposed design? why do you think your design is ok if you cannot find evidence to support it?

author: arildj78
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2025, 07:35:16 am
content: Just to be clear. I don’t have a design yet. I am asking you (and not a LLM) about how to interpret a text I a datasheet and what considerations to make concerning the choice between tantalum and MLCC.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2025, 07:43:14 am
content: Just say no to 1117. A horrible, ancient regulator with "good opportunity" of second-sourcing but as a result, parts with slightly different specifications all over the place.Use distributor parametric search to find a suitable regulator which states MLCC-stable in the datasheet (and accepts a smaller capacitance value as well), for ease of design.Tantalums are really good exactly at the linear regulator (or voltage reference) outputifyou have no choice but a regulator which needs a certain ESR value - tantalums give you relatively high amount of capacitance, stable capacitance and stable ESR, and at linear regulator output they are not susceptible to large inrush currents or voltage transients (which get them killed). But you probably do have a choice to use a regulator which is happy with any 2.2uF MLCC or so.

author: JohanH
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2025, 07:52:15 am
content: Quote from: wraper on January 28, 2025, 11:30:09 pmExactly this! Use a modern LDO that doesn't have issues with MLCC. Select the regulator based on your input and output voltage requirements.It seems to be that people in hobbyist circles recommend the 1117 because they haven't bothered looking up newer and better alternatives, just copying old designs.

author: arildj78
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2025, 08:46:02 am
content: Quote from: JohanH on January 29, 2025, 07:52:15 amIn my case, no one has suggested it. I have looked through many different new designs and modern parts, but I wanted to try to design with as many parts as possible selected from the "basic" part category over atjlcpcb.com/parts.

author: ftg
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2025, 08:51:45 am
content: If you are trying to stay withing the parts on JLC's Basic parts list, then it might be less complex to use two of the 10µF 16V tantalums or one of the 100µF 6.3V tantalums they have on the basic parts list.The datasheet for the 100µF TAJB107K006RNJ states that it has at most 1.7ohms ESR at 100kHz. So it should be fine.Even if the linked AMS1117-3.3 datasheet did not seem to mention minimum required ESR for the output capacitor.TAJB107K006RNJ datasheet.https://www.lcsc.com/datasheet/lcsc_datasheet_2111161030_Kyocera-AVX-TAJB107K006RNJ_C16133.pdf

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2025, 09:12:34 am
content: Quote from: arildj78 on January 29, 2025, 12:23:40 amThat's your problem, not ours. I (and probably others) are willing to point out general pitfalls and good directions, but not to do the specific design for you.If the datasheet doesn't specify something then it isn't guaranteed. If that something is important in your design then you have two choices: test (and hope you have spotted bad cases) or use another part. Classic example of that is MLCC C-vs-V behaviour.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2025, 09:30:23 am
content: Quote from: arildj78 on January 29, 2025, 12:23:40 amThat datasheet is missing the stability vs. ESR curve (not even in text), one of the most important curves for a linear regulator like this. For example, datasheet of LM1117 (https://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/lm1117.pdf) has it in text: "The ESR of the output capacitor should range between 0.3 Ω to 22 Ω". Compare this to LT1117 (https://www.analog.com/media/en/technical-documentation/data-sheets/1117fd.pdf), which says "The ESR of the output capacitor should be less than 0.5Ω" so completely different! LT1117 would be MLCC-stable, but LM1117 not, what a trap for casual second-sourcing - both sound like good manufacturers, it's not like they produce faulty parts, just incompatible!The LT datasheet goes further: "Surface mount tantalum capacitors, which have very low ESR", which is of course utter bullshit. With quick glance to Digikey's parametric search, for 10µF, 10 to 20V rated SMD tantalum, out of 420 parts only 9 have ESR smaller than 0.5 Ω. The wholepointof tantalum is that it never has "very low ESR", yet Linear Technology application engineer clearly doesn't know this and is still allowed to write a section about regulator stability.(63 out of 420 capacitors have ESR below 1 Ω. 205 have ESR between 1 Ω and 3 Ω, the most usual range for this size of tantalum.)And for reference, a 10µF MLCC would have ESR somewhere around 0.05 Ω AFAIK. LT1117 does not give lower limit so it should work, but maybe they are lying again.So now we have LM1117 and LT1117 which require completely different capacitor type to work in-spec, and in latter one datasheet lying about it because they just copied suggestions from LM1117 without adjusting for the part they produce. Or their ESR spec is wrong. Go figure, and this is/was a respected company.Then we have AMS1117 manufacturer of which thinks it's probably best not to talk about it at all, at least it won't go wrong. So you need to lab test.And then we have fakes.tldr; don't use 1117.

author: mikerj
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2025, 09:32:00 am
content: Quote from: wraper on January 28, 2025, 11:30:09 pmI suspect because they are dirt cheap and available on eBay/Amazon.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2025, 09:34:39 am
content: Quote from: mikerj on January 29, 2025, 09:32:00 amExactly, and it's as widely faked as $5 Rolex clocks and Nike sandals. And just like that Rolex might work good enough for some casual timekeeping purposes, this kind of fake 1117 regulator also might work, given the designer is lucky enough to use correct type and value of output capacitor, happy with lack of short circuit and thermal protections, and possibly worse voltage regulation.

author: DavidKo
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2025, 01:18:07 pm
content: Blue SCSI v2 is using MLCC 20uF 10V+100nF for AMS1117-2.85. I have not seen any any issues with it.20uF capacitor is 10V 22uF X5R ±10% 1206 Multilayer Ceramic Capacitors MLCC - SMD/SMT ROHS

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 29, 2025, 02:23:07 pm
content: Quote from: DavidKo on January 29, 2025, 01:18:07 pmWhich means whoever designed this was clueless and which is a quite common mistake. Many 1117 datasheets were created when a large capacitance MLCC was not a thing yet, many later ones are copypasta. For example Rigol DS2072A uses 1117 with MLCC as well, guess what, they oscillate depending on which brand of 1117 was usedhttps://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/project-yaigol-fixing-rigol-scope-design-problems/?action=dlattach;attach=209060. But even if they don't, don't fool yourself thinking that everything is OK. It's marginally stable at best and can start oscillating at any moment depending on some condition change like load current, temperature, MLCC part number... If you see polarized output capacitor in the datasheet and no mention of MLCC or ESR, assume LCO is not compatible with MLCC.

author: David Hess
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2025, 02:59:04 pm
content: Quote from: arildj78 on January 28, 2025, 10:11:19 pmRegulators may not function properly with "zero ESR" capacitors. This depends on the design of the regulator. If you used the ceramic output capacitor, it might be required to add something like 2.2 ohms in series with it. A transient response test could be used to determine what output capacitor ESR is best.If a 22 microfarad solid tantalum capacitor was specified, then a 100 to 220 microfarad aluminum electrolytic capacitor could also be used.QuoteSome capacitors were bad due to contamination, and this has gotten better, however in most cases failures were caused by application errors. Despite what early marketing said, non-hermetic solid tantalum capacitors need to be voltage derated, and surge currents needed to be limited. This means that their use as an output capacitor is fine because of current limiting.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 29, 2025, 03:13:28 pm
content: Quote from: David Hess on January 29, 2025, 02:59:04 pmIt's too much and is somewhere on the upper limit. For example it's max for ON semi NCP1117. Much safer to add something like 0.2-0.5 Ohm unless datasheet provides an exact stable range.Quotehttps://www.onsemi.com/pdf/datasheet/ncp1117-d.pdfAnother thing with MLCC is that they lose capacitance under voltage bias and 10uF MLCC you used may suddenly become 4uF in you circuit.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2025, 04:02:52 pm
content: Quote from: wraper on January 29, 2025, 03:13:28 pmFor example, union of the valid ranges of LM1117 and LT1117 I showed above is [0.3 .. 22] || [0 .. 0.5] = [0.3 .. 0.5] ohm. Pretty critical business, so choose your tantalums wisely if you have to use 1117!Quote from: wraper on January 29, 2025, 03:13:28 pmFor this, it would be nice to know if manufacturer's values are actual capacitances needed, or reference designs with "typical" MLCCs. If the text specifically mentions MLCC and other related magic words (like X7R), you can maybe assume they mean nominal capacitance, so some drop in capacitance is acceptable as they characterized their regulator with a similar MLCC anyway. Even then avoid parts that lose "a lot" of capacitance under bias. Gets a bit handwavy; maybe their 10µF part was down to 5µF, so avoid a part which goes down to 3µF. But how are you supposed toknowthis when they don't tell? Maybe they meant true capacitance? Or maybe they used a very large part which got only down to 8µF and stability was even then marginal and fails with your decent 6µF choice?

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 29, 2025, 04:17:34 pm
content: Quote from: Siwastaja on January 29, 2025, 04:02:52 pmAnother reason why you should stay away from 1117, most of them do not even list their stable ESR range, so you can only guess without extensive characterization. And even if you do so, manufacturer can switch to producing ICs with a different die without needing to adhere to characteristics of the previous one.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2025, 04:34:59 pm
content: Quote from: arildj78 on January 28, 2025, 10:11:19 pmI avoid using Tantalum because besides the conflict minerals problem, they are prone to failure when used incorrectly (which is typically what is happening *). One of the problems is that the inrush current must be limited. When I need to use an LDO I either use an LDO which is stable with MLCC OR put a resistor in series with an MLCC to get a higher ESR. One of the things to check when using MLCCs is the curve that tells you how much the capacitance gets reduced versus applied voltage. If this is critical, then you have to specify a specific capacitor (manufacturer & part number) to make sure the circuit is produced correctly and the capacitor is not substituted by one which is worse.* Failed tantalums are in my top 5 of most common failures I found while fixing equipment.

author: RoGeorge
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2025, 04:36:33 pm
content: Quote from: arildj78 on January 28, 2025, 10:11:19 pmFor AMS1117-3.3 you must use tantalum (there is nothing wrong with tantalum capacitors, in general). Multilayer ceramic type has a much lower ESR than tantalum. For this particular model of regulator, a capacitor with a too low ESR will make the regulator unstable. The regulator will start to behave erratically depending on loading conditions, or it might fully oscillate at all times.I had to replace once the MLCC (multilayer ceramic capacitors) from an Aliexpress regulator board because it was oscillating. Took me hours to realize why my MCU code didn't work. I didn't have tantal at hand, so I've used aluminium electrolitic capacitors, and it all became rock solid stable, and the MCU code started to run as expected.This ESR issue depends of the regulator model and topology, not all models have to have tantal. Same, the capacitors value has to be according to the datasheet, or else it may turn a good regulator into an oscillator.The must follow rule for regulator is to read the datasheet and follow the recommandations from the datasheet. There is no thumb rule as "the bigger the better" or the lower the better, etc. Follow the datasheet indications and it will work.

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2025, 04:54:17 pm
content: Quote from: Siwastaja on January 29, 2025, 04:02:52 pmMLCC is a type of construction, to get more capacitance in a small footprint.The ESR and change in capacitance with voltage depends on the actual dielectric (X7R, Z5U, etc.) and the rated voltage, since the physical behavior of the non-linear dielectric is a function of thevoltage gradient(E field) through the dielectric thickness.To get a higher voltage rating, the dielectric thickness is increased to give a lower E field at a given voltage, which also decreases the unwanted voltage dependence.A good capacitor data sheet or catalog will show the difference between dielectrics and voltage rating, and this also changes from one manufacturer to another.

author: Conrad Hoffman
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2025, 06:35:15 pm
content: I think an advantage of tantalum caps is they have a consistent ESR that's in sort of a sweet spot, not too high, not too low. Still, they need a lot of thought to apply correctly and not fail. Nothing is perfect and MLCC caps have the issues described above. They're also sensitive to cracking if placed too close to the edge of a board that flexes a bit.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2025, 06:49:56 pm
content: I don't understand the hatred of tantalum capacitors. I can only remember one catastrophically failing over the 11 years at my current job and there must be 1000s of them where I work, each 40 years old or more. I do accept that like anything, they cause problems, if used improperly.If you must go with ceramic, then add a low value series resistor, as mentioned above.

author: Bud
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2025, 06:57:50 pm
content: Ceramics suffer from microphonic effect, may inject environmental vibration noise into the circuit, though the extent of it may need to be tested for particular applications.

author: schmitt trigger
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2025, 07:15:21 pm
content: Indeed: MLCC damage due to board flexing is very real and the failure is often fatal. Worse, you could have a “wounded” device leaving your shop operating correctly, only to fail a few months of continuously applied bias.Someone else has mentioned that in his experience tantalum caps were one of the largest failure mechanisms.Well, in my experience performing failure analysis of automotive electronics, flex-crack induced MLCC failures were the #1 cause.To the TS; as you can see by now, your simple question of MLCC vs Tantalum is a rabbit hole with dozens of pathways.

author: floobydust
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2025, 07:20:41 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on January 29, 2025, 06:49:56 pmPeople don't know the rule to voltage-derate tants by 50% and, their moderate ESR makes them the wrong choice in SMPS.I've used them for decades without issue, great in analog circuits.But lately I've designed them in, and got in shit because it's a "Conflict Mineral". Then I'm reading the villagers mining tantalum ore are suffering now because they don't have business, no work to do, no money coming in. The politics of capacitors.

author: floobydust
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2025, 07:31:54 pm
content: MLCC (Class II) are not great either.You will never get the datasheet claimed valuewith the massive capacitance loss from DC bias. It depends on manufacturer but some are terrible -50% at 1/2 rated voltage. Always look at the graphs.People here need to knowaging is also a big factorwith MLCC and a recent number added on datasheets to think about.They are terrible with aging. In the first hours capacitance drops (X5R -5% in 48 hours) and then per 1,000hrs it's -3% (X7R) as an example. Do your math and see what you've got after a year or two, aside from an oscillating LDO.So using 2-4x the value you think is reasonable I would say.https://www.kemet.com/en/us/capacitors/ceramic/ceramics-faq.html

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2025, 08:09:22 pm
content: I agree that MLCCs shorting out due to hidden mechanical damage is at least equally bad problem to tantalums exploding. Both types of capacitors require understanding to design in safely. For MLCC, it's avoiding board flex and solder-time damage. For tantalums, it's derating voltage and limiting current.

author: David Hess
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2025, 10:45:44 pm
content: 20+ years ago I do not remember any problems with voltage coefficient of capacitance for X7R multilayer ceramic capacitors. For Z5U capacitors, it was about 50%. I guess they have gotten better at making thinner layers.Quote from: Zero999 on January 29, 2025, 06:49:56 pmI have had a few solid tantalum capacitors fail, but they were all in old Tektronix equipment where they had no voltage derating. I currently have a Tektronix PG506 with a bad capacitor, and it had some capacitor failures about 10 years ago also.

author: schmitt trigger
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2025, 01:52:20 am
content: I know that Kemet, now part of Yageo, can supply certified conflict-free tantalums.At least they did a few years ago.

author: PCB.Wiz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2025, 02:45:31 am
content: Quote from: arildj78 on January 29, 2025, 12:23:40 amFind a data sheet that does mention caps.x117 parts are generic and cheap, which is why they refuse to go away.One example could beZD1117ILTR331https://jlcpcb.com/parts/2nd/Power_Management_(PMIC)/Voltage_Regulators_Linear_Low_Drop_Out_(LDO)_Regulators_2956?spm=search&searchTxt=ZD1117ILTR331That '1' suffix is a 1% improved spec.They also doZD1117ILTR33with the default 2% spec, for a fraction of a cent less.That Zetta data says,"Compatible with tantalum capacitor, electrolytic capacitor and MLCC."The x7533 LDO is also popular at JLC, tho that comes in SOT89 and has a different pinout. It has lower IQ than x1117, and lower max Iout.Addit : I see the Diodes Inc AZ1117C mentionsCompatible with Low ESR Ceramic Capacitorwhilst the non C variant that mentions tantalum caps is not recommended for new designs.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2025, 05:58:38 am
content: Quote from: TimNJ on January 28, 2025, 11:10:09 pmIn terms of reliability, that's not a clear-cut call and will hightly depend on the specific constraints, the kind of parts you can find/afford, etc.Generally speaking, the failure modes of tantalum and ceramic capacitors are different. A failing tantalum might lead to a short. Which can be nasty across a power rail. OTOH, ceramic caps are prone to cracking from mechanical stress. In this case, an "open" circuit is more likely than a short. Cracked ceramic capacitors do happen.But anyway, as an input or output cap for a small LDO, I see little reason to use anything else than ceramic (of course check that said LDO will be stable with ceramic, which is usually the case with most modern ones, but possibly not with the AMS1117.)

author: floobydust
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2025, 06:11:32 am
content: Example 10uF 10V X5R 0805:https://product.samsungsem.com/mlcc/CL21A106KPFNNN.doIt's -60% (6uF) at 1/2 rated voltage (5V). Then add tolerance and aging...

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2025, 08:22:46 am
content: Quote from: SiliconWizard on January 30, 2025, 05:58:38 amNope, the typical failure mode for cracked MLCC is short-circuit. This is exactly why soft termination parts (or practices like using two in series) is so big thing in DC links (especially with battery inputs).I have had a few fail this way. Never open-circuit. (Or maybe some have failed open-circuit, too - it's harder to notice than an MLCC that glows bright yellow and emits smoke.)I specifically enjoyed the one which failed as 10-ohmish light-emitting capacitor. Kept glowing for surprisingly long time, tens of seconds.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2025, 08:55:19 am
content: Quote from: floobydust on January 29, 2025, 07:20:41 pmThat's a case of misusing using them, rather than tantalum = bad.QuoteThat's annoying. I hate it want people bring politics into design.