Arfa Daily wrote:

"larry moe 'n curly" wrote in message
...

To some extent, I don't think it is all the capacitors' fault, to be honest.
The places that electrolytics are found in today's equipments, tend to be
very stressful to them, when you couple in other factors such as the
international law on pain of death that requires designers to place
electros as close as is physically possible to anything that runs hot,
and then to mount the power supply or whatever board they're on,
upside down in the corner of the equipment with the least airflow,
it's actually not that surprising that these devices exhibit such
*apparent* unreliability.

So why do the good brands tolerate those conditions so well while the
same old junk brands don't? And contrary to what you say, most of the
caps aren't in hot spots but are running at under 60 Celcius

So, what exactly are you saying ... ? That better quality components
tolerate abuse more readily than cheapo crap ones ? Very profound ... I
don't think that is actually at odds with anything I said, is it ?

I seem to recall in my original reply to William that part of the reason that he may
have had good luck in regard to electrolytic failure, is the fact that he
has tended in the past to buy better quality equipment where the
manufacturers have been prepared to "design to a better spec with a few
cents more spent on components ..."

That better quality components tolerate abuse more readily than cheapo
crap ones ? Very profound....

I'm just saying that low quality is probably a worse problem than the
heat (power boards for LCDs are sparse) or high currents. The usual
suspects have the same specs as the good components do, at least when
new, and their lifespan specs are also identical.