Talk:Film capacitor

Film capacitor

Hi Reify-tech, maybe you remember helping me for better English with “Capacitor plague”. Now I wrote a new article "Film capacitor" and put it under "User:Elcap/Film capacitor". This article is not only a translation from the German Wikipedia article ([[1]]) but have a lot of additional informations especially written in respect of new information. May be I am an expert of capacitors but not of the English language, that is the reason to ask for help in grammar, wordings and so on. Please have a look at my draft and may be you have a little bit time to make a good English article out of this. (I ask "SpinningSpark" for the same) Thanks for helping. --Elcap (talk) 00:32, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I took a quick look at your draft, and it looks very comprehensive. I will be happy to help polish up the translation, to the extent that I have time. I assume that you've checked the English Wikipedia for existing coverage of the same topic (I did a quick search, and found nothing). In any event, I'm sure your material will be a notable improvement over the existing coverage. -- Reify-tech (talk) 01:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I've done a lot of editing, and probably reached the halfway point, or further. Some questions:

1 - I can't figure out what "a.m.o." means (in most browsers, use ^F to search the article for this)

2 - Is it possible to change the text labels within some of the diagrams?

-- Reify-tech (talk) 13:37, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Following your excellent copyedit, I didn't see any reason for the article not to go live and have moved it to Film capacitor. Regarding the above, after some searches it appears that a.m.o. is short for anodic metal oxide.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:29, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Yikes! I'm still working on it! I'm afraid the article will be forked into multiple versions. Could we hold off on release until it's somewhat more finished? -- Reify-tech (talk) 14:48, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Well sure, I can move it back, but articles can be worked on in the mainspace. Why would people fork it? Anyway, I don't ever want to get in the way of anyone who's doing the heavy lifting so I'll go do it now.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:19, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• Hi Reify-tech, thanks so much for all your assistance. I just ask Fuhghettaboutit to move this draft now to a "Wiki" (because I have never done it before)

It would be better to discuss all future questions on the film caps discussion page. (where I have written a.m.o.??) And shure, if you want to change some descriptions in the drawings I easily can do it. But somebody have to tell me what. Maybe it takes a little bit time (holydays now). --Elcap (talk) 00:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

A copy was taken without warning when I was in the middle of extensive editing over the entire article, and later written back over my edits, effectively reverting them. Then User: Elcap edited further, unaware of my work that was lost. Thus, I can't simply revert back to the version that was overwritten. which would discard his work. Somebody will have to examine each change and merge them together by hand, or just abandon my last round of work, or Elcap's work. In other words, the article is forked.

I stopped work when I suspected the article was forked, and couldn't get back until now (was out this afternoon and evening). I don't consider the copyedit sweeps finished, as there are major sections that have barely been touched and are still in rough shape. I was going to finish the first sweep in maybe another day's work, then ask Elcap and anybody else interested to review things before rolling it out. A premature rollout is just asking to be tagged all over for problems I know are still there, and which I was in the process of fixing. The fact that the abortive rollout hasn't been noticed by other editors or readers is due to the fact that it isn't Wikilinked yet; those links should be put in after there is a decent article in place to link to.

Since English isn't Elcap's native language, what I've just written here may not be entirely clear. I suggest that we discuss things and figure out what we're doing, before taking any further unilateral action. I'm feeling discouraged and tired at this point, and am going to sleep. -- Reify-tech (talk) 04:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean. No copy was taken. It was moved exactly for the reason of preserving the edit history, i.e., not cut and paste anywhere and then moved back at your request above. Nothing has been forked.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Aha! I see what happened. During the interval between your last edit and my move, you were making edits and you saved them to the old name where the article was no longer located which edit was then deleted upon the move. I have fixed it, undeleting that edit into the history (the edit of March 25 at 14:41) and reverted to that version. Nothing's lost. Please continue!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Whew! I've finished an initial copyedit sweep, and the article is now ready for review and further revision. I suggest holding back its release a couple of days, to allow User:Elcap and interested others to do any last-minute editing before public rollout. I have used the tag template {{elucidate}} to flag items that I couldn't figure out immediately on this first pass, so I or somebody else can go back later and find them quickly in the Wikisource code to resolve them. I think most of these items can be resolved by Elcap, or by referring back to the original German version.

Once a stable and consistent terminology, spelling, and style have been settled upon, the labeling text inside some of the diagrams should be revised, probably by Elcap, since I think he originally produced them.

Thank you for your patience in waiting for me to finish the heavy editing. We should try to loosely coordinate with each other, to avoid WP:Edit conflicts (really, "edit collisions"), and edit only one subsection at a time (when possible), to reduce the likelihood of a collision. I'm going to take a rest break now, and let other editors have a look at the article. I hope you like it. I've definitely learned a lot from reading (and editing) it. -- Reify-tech (talk) 15:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Once you think it's ready (and I may take a quick pass tonight), this is an excellent candidate for a DYK, which rarely gets articles this comprehensive.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I hadn't thought about nominating the article for DYK, but you've made an intriguing suggestion here. Maybe the "hook" could be, "Did you know... that metallized film capacitors have a "self-healing" property which allows them to automatically clear away internal short-circuit faults, and to resume normal operation within fractions of a second?" The article subsection pointed to had better be in tip-top condition, including good pictures and sufficient inline citations to verifiable references. The rest of the article should be at least in acceptable condition.

I followed the 2 existing refs from the "Self-healing of metallized film capacitors" section (one needs to be slightly updated already), and found more interesting info, including diagrams of "safety film" metallization patterns, which I had not seen before. Clearly, even this well-written subsection could still use improvement in references, and perhaps even in content.

If we really want to go for it, the article does need further finishing and polishing before we release it, since public release starts an automatic 5-day maximum limit on eligibility. This rule implies that we should spend time in advance getting the chosen subsection(s) and the overall article into as good shape as possible, then release and nominate it, and be ready for a 5-day sprint to respond to any questions or suggestions for improvement from the panel of judges. As to when there's a consensus that the article is ready for release, we ought to hear from User:Elcap, who did most of the original writing in German, as well as other editors working on the article. -- Reify-tech (talk) 19:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

That's an interesting hook and by the thinnest hair under the 200 character recommendation limit for DYK (count tool here). Yes, the information for the hook must be cited in the article using a reliable source with an inline citation. I think the rest of the article is already in fairly decent shape, and quite acceptable for DYK, though I am not saying there could not be much more done by any means. I've done many DYK nominations (mostly my own articles, but probably 5 or so others) so if you want me to do the nomination, that would not be a problem.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I've finished my complete copyedit sweep of the entire article, and appreciate other editors standing aside while I worked, to avoid "edit collisions". I consider this initial phase completed, and invite other interested editors to work on the article in tandem with me. I will try to stay out of other's way as I edit within sections, and expect other editors will try their best as well. The article is in much better shape now, but still needs a lot of work before rollout, if we want to try for DYK as discussed above. --Reify-tech (talk) 17:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Articles get more attention when they're in the mainspace. Since you're done with your main copyedits I really don't see any reason it should not be moved. DYK does not require articles that have been through a peer review and FAC, but is for new articles. I think the article is quite sufficient for DYK, with much thanks to you, so long as the section the hook information comes from is cited. Do you oppose a move to the mainspace?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm undecided at this point. I'd like to hear from User:Elcap, who still seems to be making significant technical additions to the article in spite of being on vacation. I don't think he has yet expressed interest (or disinterest) in going for WP:DYK. At the least, I'd like to hear his opinion on whether the "hook" is appropriate, and the section it points to is technically correct and fully referenced. Also, I'd feel more comfortable with the article if Elcap had a chance to look at and resolve the open issues I flagged on my copyedit sweep through the article. Last but not least, I have no idea what kind of connectivity or inclination/ability to respond quickly Elcap may have while on vacation. Elcap does point out (below, in next section) that his ability to respond quickly is impaired while he's away from his home base in Germany. If he's like many writers I know, he would be best equipped to respond from home, with all his familiar reference works and notes at hand. I wouldn't mind getting DYK for the article, but I have little experience with responding to a nomination, and the 5-day timeout sounds a bit intimidating without Elcap (who apparently wrote most or nearly all of the original article in German) being able to fully participate. --Reify-tech (talk) 00:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Section headings

The Wikipedia Manual of Style recommendation on "Section headings" (MOS:HEAD) says:

• Headings should not refer redundantly to the subject of the article, or to higher-level headings, unless doing so is shorter or clearer. (Early life is preferable to His early life when his refers to the subject of the article; headings can be assumed to be about the subject unless otherwise indicated.)

Following this recommendation, I [had] removed the many redundant "film capacitors" references in the section headings, except where they were necessary for clarity. I'm not going to be doctrinaire about this, but I do think that following the Wikipedia guideline does result in a better, more readable article. --Reify-tech (talk) 02:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Elcap, I haven't reverted the section headings, out of respect for your previous work. With your consent, I'm willing to remove the multiple redundant "film capacitors" wording again. If not, I'll set this issue aside until other editors voice their opinions. Please look at the Wikisource code items tagged with "elucidate", and see if you can resolve whatever issues I found confusing on my initial sweep. If the terminology and spelling in the text are acceptable, the diagrams need to be relabeled to be consistent with the text. I can generate a more-specific list of proposed diagram changes, if you want. --Reify-tech (talk) 17:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Hi Wikis, The section headings are not a question of Wiki rules but of logic thinking. It is not the polymer film have influence to an electronic circuit but the capacitor behind. Otherwise we have to cancel all advanages of the relevant capacitor in spite of electronics in this section. Not a good idea. If now the name of the capacitor is to long and not good "readable" it is not a problem of the author but of the technique behind. And please have a look to the article "Types of capacitors", it is very important to use the correct capacitor names te eleminate the "Kuddelmuddel" now is written in the English Wiki --Elcap (talk) 01:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• • By the way, I now spend my holydays "on the sunny side of the world" (Fl). If you want that I read your corrections and change technical parts in spite of my 40 years experiances with capacitors (if required) than you have to give me more time than only 5 days. End of April I will be back at home in Germany.

Elcap, I'm not fully convinced regarding the section headings, but I defer to your opinion on this. As I hope you noticed (above, in previous section), User:Fuhghettaboutit would like to immediately release the article to Wikipedia mainspace, and to nominate it for WP:DYK status. I would like to hear your clear opinion on how finished/unfinished the article is, and whether you could respond quickly to any requests during the 5-day maximum limit on eligibility, once a nomination is submitted. Fuhghettaboutit and I both think the article stands a good chance of attaining DYK status, but I'd like your opinion on whether to go for it now, or to continue working on improvements and to go for it after you've returned from your vacation. Best wishes! --Reify-tech (talk) 00:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• • And a second question. Can we copy this discussion to my user page? --Elcap (talk) 01:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your suggestion that we move further discussion of the article User:Elcap/Film capacitor to User talk:Elcap/Film capacitor, it sounds like a good idea to me. I haven't done such a move before, so I'm not quite sure how to do it (do the logs have to be moved/copied too?). User:Fuhghettaboutit, could you do the move, or still better, point me to info on how to do it, so I can learn how? --Reify-tech (talk) 00:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I could do it as a move, but it would be messy and is unneeded (it requires administrative tools, and is a bit complicated if inexperienced (I've done a few thousand moves and numerous history merges, splits, swaps and the like as I've spent much time implementing requested moves). For transfer of a discussion like this, we would just copy and paste it there, providing copyright attribution in the edit summary by noting where the information came from with a wikilink, e.g, "transferring relevant discussions from [[User talk:Reify-tech#Film capacitor]] and [[User talk:Reify-tech#Section headings]]" This is similar to the copyright attribution requirements of a merge. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Most users don't even bother (or realize there is something to bother about) when moving discussion from talk pages (though they should). Anyway, if you're interested in the mysteries of history tinkering, see Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:23, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

While I dont quite follow the discussion above, is it really nessesary to have the heading of "8.2 Film capacitors for EMI/RFI interference suppression and connection to the supply mains" in such an extended form.

1. Because the word interference is already included in EMI and RFI (Electro-magnetic interference and Radio-frequency interference)? 2. Because as stated above this article has the subject of film capacitors Might I suggest "8.2 EMI/RFI suppression and connection to the supply mains" ?? Zerodamage (talk) 14:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The very large heading comes from the correct heading of the concerning IEC standard. Sometimes I found in datasheets the term "Safety capacitor" for not writing "and connection to the supply mains". If you agree I will change the header into: "Safety and EMI/RFI suppression capacitors". --Elcap (talk) 07:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Some closing remarks from Elcap

I found the time to read the actual version once and made some smaller remarks. Now I Think, the article is better than the German one. In the German Wiki the power capacitors do have their own article but for the English version I want to underline the common relationship between the “film capacitors for use in electronic equipment” (heading of the generic specification 60384-1) and the power (film) capacitors. Out of my feeling now you can move the article to the “wiki”. But please inclusive our discussion here on this user page.

If you want to change some descriptions in the drawings please feel free to ask me. Sorry that I did it not in inkscape but I do not master tis software.

Once again, thank you so much in helping to correct my German sounding language into English. I gave you a nugget, you polish it. By the way, the German article got the award “Lesenswert”. Kind regards --Elcap (talk) 01:20, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Text in the description of the standards

Hi Reify-tech, I see you take a lot of time for corrections. But some corrections are not allowed: The description text behind the standards are copies of the header of the relevant standard. For example: the IEC write "a.c." and not "AC" like usual in the Wiki. I think we cannot change the original standard header. If you want to check please link "Beuth Verlag" or the English publisher of standards and insert the standard number and check wether I make a mistake or not. --Elcap (talk) 00:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

It follows the list corrected by me with IEC/EN and not only EN so you may be can copy it :

• IEC/EN 61071; Capacitors for power electronics
• IEC/EN 60252-1; AC motor capacitors. General. Performance, testing and rating. Safety requirements. Guidance for installation and operation
• IEC/EN 60110-1; Power capacitors for induction heating installations - General
• IEC/EN 60567; Oil-filled electrical equipment - Sampling of gases and of oil for analysis of free and dissolved gases – Guidance
• IEC/EN 60143-1; Series capacitors for power systems. General
• IEC/EN 60143-2; Series capacitors for power systems. Protective equipment for series capacitor banks
• IEC/EN 60143-3; Series capacitors for power systems - Internal fuses
• IEC/EN 60252-2; AC motor capacitors. Motor start capacitors
• IEC/EN 60831-1; Shunt power capacitors of the self-healing type for a.c. systems having a rated voltage up to and including 1kV. General. Performance, testing and rating. Safety requirements. Guide for installation and operation
• IEC/EN 60831-2; Shunt power capacitors of the self-healing type for a.c. systems having a rated voltage up to and including 1000 V. Ageing test, self-healing test and destruction test
• IEC/EN 60871-1; Shunt capacitors for a.c. power systems having a rated voltage above 1000 V. General
• IEC/EN 60931-1; Shunt power capacitors of the non-self-healing type for a.c. systems having a rated voltage up to and including 1 kV - General - Performance, testing and rating - Safety requirements - Guide for installation and operation
• IEC/EN 60931-2; Shunt power capacitors of the non-self-healing type for a.c. systems having a rated voltage up to and including 1000 V. Ageing test and destruction test
• IEC 60143-4; Series capacitors for power systems. Thyristors controlled series capacitors
• IEC/EN 61921; Power capacitors. Low-voltage power factor correction banks
• IEC/EN 60931-3; Shunt power capacitors of the non-self-healing type for a.c. systems having a rated voltage up to and including 1000 V. Internal fuses
• IEC/EN 61881-1; Railway applications. Rolling stock equipment. Capacitors for power electronics. Paper/plastic film capacitors
• IEC 62146-1; Grading capacitors for high-voltage alternating current circuit-breakers

Greetings --Elcap (talk) 00:32, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

If that's the abbreviation the standards use, then we should follow. But a usage note should be appended to the table to explain that "a.c." means "AC" in standard US terminology. --Reify-tech (talk) 00:42, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

IEC is not US, it is international. It is indeed the one by one copy of the IEC header (Titel), for the 60384-x standars here my original (Copy is for you simplier than surch all corrections. --Elcap (talk) 14:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Overview about the standards of film capacitors

Standard number	Film short name	Capacitor construction	Terminals	Voltage	Standard description
IEC/EN 60384-2	PET	metallized	leaded	DC	Fixed metallized polyethylene-terephthalate film dielectric d.c. capacitors
IEC/EN 60384-11	PET	film/foil	leaded	DC	Fixed polyethylene-terephthalate film dielectric metal foil d.c. capacitors
IEC/EN 60384-13	PP	film/foil	leaded	DC	Fixed polypropylene film dielectric metal foil d.c. capacitors
IEC/EN 60384-16	PP	metallized	leaded	DC	Fixed metallized polypropylene film dielectric d.c. capacitors
IEC/EN 60384-17	PP	metallized	leaded	AC	Fixed metallized polypropylene film dielectric a.c. and pulse
IEC/EN 60384-19	PET	metallized	SMD	DC	Fixed metallized polyethylene-terephthalate film dielectric surface mount d.c. capacitors
IEC/EN 60384-20	PPS	metallized	SMD	DC	Fixed metalized polyphenylene sulfide film dielectric surface mount d.c. capacitors
IEC/EN 60384-23	PEN	metallized	SMD	DC	Fixed metallized polyethylene naphthalate film dielectric chip d.c. capacitors

Class 1

Hy Reify-tech, the characteristics "Class 1", Class 2" or "Class 3" are specified in the relevant standards for film capacitors and ceramic capacitors. If you want, please add a remark regarding the IEC standards. But the characteristics of the classes are well known in the componenet business. --Elcap (talk) 00:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia shows Class 1 as concerned with insulation and appliance safety. If it has a different meaning in the capacitor context, a reference to the correct definition is needed. I'm not very familiar with the IEC standards you refer to, or I would have put in the reference myself, please give more info. --Reify-tech (talk) 00:42, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Definition and table now is available under PP film capacitors. Table I did as picture (Wiki common). May be you would like it as Wikitable, please convert.

I never realise, that these capacitor classes for film and ceramics could be a question. Blindness of the expert. Thank you for the question. --Elcap (talk) 12:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying this question. Could you give a reference (or a pointer to coverage elsewhere in Wikipedia) to the definitions of the various Stability Classes? My quick search of Wikipedia turned up nothing related to capacitor stability, and thus it does not appear to have any coverage of this topic. --Reify-tech (talk) 00:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The reference for polypropylene flm caps for Class 1 is IEC/EN 60384-13. The other standards of PP film caps have no Class1 specifications. The stability classes for ceramic capacitors you can find in the German article "Keramikkondensator".

To make it a little bit more complicated there are besides the "stability classes" another "classes" called "Grade". Grade 1 capacitors are "longlife", Grade 2 capacitors are "general purpose" capacitors. I try to bring the information about these "grades" with a few sentences into the chapter "Aging". --Elcap (talk) 00:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Development, Reduction of volume

you want to have a source for the reductuon of the volume for a given C/V value over the time:

Die Miniaturisierung in der Elektronik wurde nicht zuletzt auch durch Miniaturisierung bei den Kondensatoren erreicht. Die Volumeneffizienz eines Keramikkondensators beispielsweise konnte durch Weiterentwicklung in der Fertigungstechnik hin zu MLCC-Keramikkondensatoren bei gleichem C/V-Wert um etwa den Faktor 500 gesteigert werden.

If you want to check please do not surge in the internet. This informations are printed on paper before the google age began. --Elcap (talk) 00:45, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Wow, that's a very nice graphic showing the relative progress of volumetric efficiency since 1970. Could you modify the image by replacing the German with English text? --Reify-tech (talk) 01:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, of course, but give me some time, --Elcap (talk) 14:10, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Certainly! I will compile a modest list of translated text for the various diagrams, but I don't necessarily expect you to work on them during your vacation! I like the informal German abbreviations for the capacitor types (e.g. "Folkos"); English doesn't seem to have these particular shortcuts. --Reify-tech (talk) 00:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Increasing volumetric efficiencies of capacitors between 1970 and 2005

--Elcap (talk) 00:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I've added your very nice graphic to the articles Types of capacitor and Volumetric efficiency. Then, I noticed two minor tweaks to the English text labels that are needed:

• "smaller" --> "finer"
• "rougned" --> "porosity"

Please update the graphic at your earliest convenience. Thanks! --Reify-tech (talk) 00:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Reify-tech, Tantalum: "finer" is better, o. k., Aluminum: "roughened" is the correct word. The anode foil is not "porous", it is "rough" --Elcap (talk) 00:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)--Elcap (talk) 00:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I had tried to find a better synonym in my thesaurus. but it doesn't even list the word "roughen". Anyway, I think the word "roughened" gets the idea across adequately, if that's your preference. --Reify-tech (talk) 01:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

in German: "rauh" (alte Schreibweise) "rau" (neue Schreibweise). Wir sprechen von "Oberflächenrauhigkeit" (roughened of the surface), je höher der "Aufrauhgrad", desto größer die Kapazität. The "gain" of the rough(e)ness has increased over the time because the rough(e)ness of the anode foil increases. My question: The correct English writing of this word. By the way, in German this word also is seldom in use, but it is special for aluminum electrolytic capacitors (not for tantalum. here the surface of the sintered body is "sponge-like". --Elcap (talk) 23:12, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Danke, verstehe ich dass ein wenig besseres. I've searched for better synonyms, and came up with "crinkled", "crumpled", or "wrinkled". But "roughened" is probably the best word so far. The modifier "higher" doesn't work well here, as it implies either height or a numeric count. The words "better-roughened anode foils" work better in this context. --Reify-tech (talk) 00:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Reactance equations

Shouldn't the reactance equations refer to $L_{\mathrm {ESL} }$, analogous to $R_{\mathrm {ESR} }$? The unexplained change in notation from the diagrams to the equations is confusing. --Reify-tech (talk) 22:15, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

• You are aright, $L_{\mathrm {ESL} }$ is correct. In the industry language we only write "ESL" and "ESR" but here....

Happy Easter, --Elcap (talk) 00:50, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I've fixed the equations. --Reify-tech (talk) 04:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

"Overlapping Applications of Capacitor Types" diagram

The diagram is very clear and well-organized, but the English translations need a little tweaking:

• "Capacitors Overlapping Applications" --> "Overlapping Applications of Capacitor Types"
• "Aluminium Electrolytic Capacitors" --> "Aluminum Electrolytic Capacitors"
• "Flashlight" --> "Strobe Flash"
• "Power Factor Control PFC" --> "Power Factor Correction (PFC)"
• "Voltage doubbling" --> "Voltage Doubling"
• "Filtering Stop filter" --> "Bandstop Filter"
• "Filtering Pass filter" --> "Bandpass Filter"
• "TV fly-back tuning" --> "TV Flyback Tuning"
• "Voltage dropper" --> "Voltage Divider"
• "Motor run" --> "Motor Run"
• "Peak voltage detectors" --> "Peak-Voltage Detector"
• "Sample and hold A-D converters" --> "Sample-and-Hold A/D converter"
• "RFI suppression" --> "EMI/RFI Suppression"
• "Oscillating" --> "Oscillator Tuning"
• "Welding" --> "Spot Welding"
• "Buffering" --> ?????
• "USV-Buffering" --> ?????
• "AC/AC DC link" --> ?????

For consistency, we should use the singular form everywhere, and not mix in scattered plural forms. Also, we should capitalize all major words consistently.

I looked at the German version of the article for the original diagram, but was unable to find the diagram's "doppelganger". If you have an original German version, could you point me to it? With my rudimentary knowledge of German, plus your reasonable mastery of English, plus both our understandings of technical terminology, we should be able to figure out workable translations for the remaining mysteries. --Reify-tech (talk) 04:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I updated the list slightly. The items at the end are the partial mysteries remaining to be resolved. Could you explain them more fully, or give some examples, and/or tell me the original German terminology? --Reify-tech (talk) 20:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Reify-tech, thank you for helping. I aggree, that our understandings of technical terminology is the common basis. Please understand, that with my europian and industially background some used terms differ a little bit from the highschool or university interpretation.

But one question, you would like to correct some applications in the overlapping diagram. Of course, I will do it (My "son in law", a nice English born guy, would hate me changing "aluminium" into "aluminum"). But why do you would change in the second word always the capital letter? Example: my "Filtering Stop filter" may be wrong, the German English for this application differ surely from the original, you would be change it into "Bandstop Filter", but the Wiki article is named "Band-stop filter". Is it correct to write in the the second name the letter in capital letters? Shall we check the existing Wiki article first? Kind regards --Elcap (talk) 22:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The recommendations in WP:RETAIN give the option of using British or American (or Canadian or Australian, etc.) spelling and vocabulary. Since I'm American, and have been doing the work of polishing the translation of the entire article, I'm asserting the prerogative of using the variant of English which I'm most comfortable with. If your son-in-law were to work on the initial translation of another article into English, he would have the right to use the British variant (there are common-sense exceptions, as described in the guidelines).

The use of capitalization is somewhat different for labels on diagrams, as opposed to running text or section headers. The rules about this are flexible, but when in doubt, I try to choose for best readability and clarity. Again, I won't be doctrinaire about this, but strongly recommend that we be consistent. --Reify-tech (talk) 23:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

No, my son-in-law do not help me for translation. That are my own mistakes. He has a job and a young family. It is o.k. for American English. My question only was, is it consistent to write names in my picture in a different way regarding to Wiki headers?--Elcap (talk) 00:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

A little more English label tweaking:

• "Sample-and Hold A/D Converter" --> " "Sample-and-Hold A/D Converter"
  • done, changed Strobe Flash into "Flashtube ignition" because flash-Al-E-Caps are used in nearly all cameras. But for strobe flashes, continuos flashes over a certain time, Al-E-Caps are not able to withstand (overheating) (Seldom application for film caps) --Elcap (talk) 23:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
• "Silicon oil tank" -->"Silicone oil tank" (in the process flow diagram in the section "Example manufacturing process")

--Reify-tech (talk) 01:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

done, hope "Common" realize that --Elcap (talk) 23:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

No changes visible yet, probably propagation delay in the Wiki servers. Hopefully, will see it in a few hours. --Reify-tech (talk) 23:52, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Dimensions, development

Reduction of the dimensions of metallized polyester film capacitors from 1980 up to 2012:

Typ: 1 µF/250 V

1980 Series 344, Philips, dim.: 9,5 x 19 x 26 mm, vol.: 4693 mm3 (Philips Data handbook Film capacitors 1980)

2012 Series MKS 4, Wima, dim.: 8 x 15 x 18 mm, vol.: 2160 mm3

2012 Series F611, Kemet, dim.: 7,5 x 13,5 x 18 mm, vol.: 1822 mm3

Volume reduction approximately factor 3 to 4

Text in the article changed from factor 10 to now factor 3 to 4. --Elcap (talk) 09:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Reify-tech, in Historical development for the sentence In terms of miniaturization, the film capacitors have made significant progress since the beginning of the technology. Through development of thinner plastic films, for example, the dimensions of metallized polyester film capacitors have been decreased by a factor of approximately 3 to 4 in the last 20 years. you want to have “citation needed“. Please see the above dimensions of capacitors from 1980 and 2012. This figures prove the figures in the article. --Elcap (talk) 19:31, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Centered tables

I have centered the tables horizontally on the layout page, which I think looks more balanced. I noticed that the last table just added (File:PP-film-caps-stability classes.png) was included as a graphic. I think that Wikipedia recommends that tables be built in the standard way, using Wikitables, which are easier to correct and update, and render better on a wide variety of display devices. Also, embodying table data in a graphic makes the information they contain effectively invisible to vision-impaired and blind users of Wikipedia. I suggest reformatting the table as a Wikitable. --Reify-tech (talk) 13:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Shure, wiki tables are better than a graphic. Because I belong to the generation "hollerith card" and "magnetic core memory" I have a lot of trouble writing wiki tables in the wiki syntax. It cost me hours over hours. Do you know somebody for helping? --Elcap (talk) 17:17, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

My own computer experience started with paper tape and magnetic drum memory, and I thought that punched cards were a major step up, since they could be edited more easily. 8^) I haven't built any Wikitables from scratch, only updated information into a framework that already existed. I suggest picking an existing table that is very similar to the one needed, and incrementally modifying its content to get what is needed. Unfortunately, I don't know any Wikitable experts, only somebody who is good at building Wikipedia:Route diagram templates. --Reify-tech (talk) 17:54, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

My experiances in the German Wiki is, that within 3 to 4 weeks one of the Wiki writers will change a graphic into a Wiki table. It is not a question laziness, it is a question of effectiveness. With my knowledge of capacitors I would like to spend my time for bettering the capacitor articles. --Elcap (talk) 17:22, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Sounds OK to me. If you notice that somebody on the German Wiki (or the English one, for that matter) has translated the graphic to a Wikitable, please cross-import it. Your expertise in capacitors is indeed better used on their technical aspects. --Reify-tech (talk) 02:29, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I noticed the new Wikitable, which looks very good. I hope the conversion process wasn't too painful. I will search for the remaining "elucidate" tags and work on resolving the remaining issues if I can. --Reify-tech (talk) 22:09, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Class, category, and grade

The above words (and maybe others) have been assigned specialized technical meanings in the context of capacitors, whereas other apparently similar words such as "type" and "variety" do not have specialized meanings assigned to them (as far as I remember). It is important to carefully define the specialized technical definition the first time it appears in a section of the article. In addition, would a small section on "Terminology" or a "Glossary" be useful? --Reify-tech (talk) 13:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The words "class" and "grade" are are specified in the generic specification IEC (EN/DIN) 60384-1 resp. the IEC specifications of the relevant capacitor family. I will see, where these words first would be mentioned and try to add the definition and the source of the definition. Category in connection with temperature also is defined in the IEC specifications and will be a basic specification of the temperature range of electronic components. Here I use the wording you can find in most of the datasheets for capacitors, resistors a. s. o. A small section on "Terminology" or "Glossary"? I do not understand your question. Most of the words (Parameters) are described in the article, "Capacitance", "Voltage", "Aging" a.s.o. Do you think I forgot some parameters to describe? --Elcap (talk) 17:40, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I was suggesting a separate "Glossary" only as a possible alternative. I think that defining the technical terms upon their first appearance in a section of the article is probably enough. We could always add a Glossary later, if we felt it would be of further help. Also, you've used the abbreviation "a. s. o." a few times, and I'm not familiar with it at all. Googling it doesn't turn up anything very illuminating. Could you spell out whatever it abbreviates? --Reify-tech (talk) 18:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, let's decide later, if a "glossary" can help to understand all terms better. By the way, if you have had a look around about all capacitor articles in the german Wiki you possible can understand, that the article only was the first one I try to bring into the English Wiki. Updating and bettering the articles about ceramic-, electrolytic- (aluminum, tantalum) double-layer- (Supercapacitors), pseudocapacitors, Li-ion-capacitors and nanocapacitors as well as types of capacitors I want to overwork. May be the "glossary" can be a good idea later for the main article "capacitor".

a.s.o. = and so on (German: und so weiter) I believe I had learned that half a century ago, may be I remember something wrong I(?)

Spring now round Hamburg brings the green to the trees. Greetings --Elcap (talk) 17:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Now I understand what you meant by "a.s.o.". I'm pretty sure it's not used in any of the versions of English I'm familiar with. A better translation would be "etc." ("et cetera"), which is widely used and understood, even though it comes from Latin. I agree that a Glossary would be better in the main Capacitor article. We just need to briefly define the capacitor-specific terms the first time they appear in this article, so it is clear they have a specific technical meaning in relation to capacitors. I didn't know the breadth of your knowledge of other "types" of capacitors, "Elcap", though it doesn't surprise me at this point. I look forward to working with you, and learning more about capacitors in the future. --Reify-tech (talk) 02:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I've removed several of the "elucidate" tags, where the problem was resolved, or I decided that things are good enough as they stand. I think that the first appearances of the technical terms "Class", "Category", and "Grade" still need to be defined upon their first use. The remaining "elucidate" tag has something to do with Teflon film thickness, where I'm really not sure what it's trying to say. Could you come up with an alternate wording, so maybe I"ll understand better what is intended there? --Reify-tech (talk) 14:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Upon looking again, I see that "Class" and "Grade" are fairly well-defined. Only "Category" appears a bit confusing in its first appearance, which is still flagged "elucidate". --Reify-tech (talk) 20:16, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

• Hi Reify-tech, please do not meditate about "Category". The IEC language knows "Category Voltage", "Category Temperature" etc., etc. It is a special language of the standardisation and in many times used in the datasheets of the manufacturers to specify the relevant parameters. It is technical wise a little bit more pecise than using only "Temperature". --Elcap (talk) 19:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Relation between category temperature range and applied voltage

Figure added --Elcap (talk) 07:24, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Characteristics of PC, PI and PTFE materials for film capacitors

For table "Characteristics of plastic film materials for film capacitors":

		Film material, abbreviated codes
Film characteristics		PC	PI	PTFE
Relative permittivity at 1 kHz		3.0	3.3	2.0
Minimum film thickness (µm)		2	50	9
Moisture absorption (%)		0.3	2.5	<0.1
Dielectric strength (V/µm)		–	–	–
Commercial realized voltage proof (V/µm)		220	260	100
DC voltage range (V)		63—1000	100—1600	25—1000
Capacitance range		100 pF—10 µF	1000 pF—0.1 µF	1 pF—5 µF
Application temperature range (°C)		–55 — +100	–55 — +250	–55 — +200
ΔC/C versus temperature range (%)		+0 -2	–	+2 -4
Dissipation factor (•10−4)
	at 1 kHz	1—3	2—4	0.1—0.3
	at 10 kHz	2—5	–	–
	at 100 kHz	5—10	–	–
Dielectric absorption ( %)		0.05	–	–

[2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] S-Ene (talk) 07:12, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

very nice, but what do you want to say? PC film is obsolete, PI up to now in preparation, only PTFE is in use but seldom and only available from a few manufacturers. The target of the present table is to show the characteristics of the most used foils.--Elcap (talk) 15:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

The table name does not contain combination of words "most used". Therefore I proposed yet 3 columns (PC, PI and PTFE) for comparison these with another 4 capacitor types.S-Ene (talk) 06:16, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Nice

I just read this article on film caps to get a modern overview, and I would like to say how informative, well written, and well structured it is- nice work by all those who contributed. CPES (talk) 12:13, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Film 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20120707181914/http://www.vishay.com/docs/26033/gentecin.pdf to http://www.vishay.com/docs/26033/gentecin.pdf

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

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:52, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

"Film Capacitors". my.execpc.com. This is obsolete, New site is iequalscdvdt.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.128.92.30 (talk) 21:00, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Good enough?

I think this article is good enough to be nominated as a Good Article. Any support?--178.106.99.31 (talk) 19:52, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Film 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121227125113/http://www.samwha.com:80/capacitor/ to http://www.samwha.com/capacitor/

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) 15:30, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Film 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121105021659/http://www.wima.de/EN/characteristics.htm to http://www.wima.de/EN/characteristics.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120705044039/http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/electrical/documents/emc/legislation/ to http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/electrical/documents/emc/legislation/

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) 19:32, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Add MPP section

https://www.quora.com/What-is-an-MPP-capacitor :

MPP capacitors are most common today for most capacitors used for fan and motors, lighting, power factor correction and many electronic applications.

MPP stands for Metallized Polypropylene Capacitor. Dielectric in these capacitors is thin polypropylene film metallized with fine layer of Zinc, Zinc Alloy or Aluminium.

So please mention them. Jidanni (talk) 12:48, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Metallized PP foil capacitors are most common, you are right. However, in the descriptions of the different foil materials the differences in the constructions "metallized" or "film/foils" only makes differences in the power loading capacity. The different versions you can see at paragraph "Film capacitors type abbreviations". "MPP" is not an standardized abbreviation. --Elcap (talk) 14:02, 18 June 2018 (UTC)