Email Detail

HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept

{
    "url": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/SEZD6HW43UBXRCBIYKKNJ7JYWKEY3ZNO/?format=api",
    "mailinglist": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/?format=api",
    "message_id": "[email protected]",
    "message_id_hash": "SEZD6HW43UBXRCBIYKKNJ7JYWKEY3ZNO",
    "thread": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/thread/KK75DA42V2CVIKOT3KCXESRATCF6E3X2/?format=api",
    "sender": {
        "address": "greencl (a) mindspring.com",
        "mailman_id": "5421c5ff9a12494f8f7bd304db4ac696",
        "emails": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/sender/5421c5ff9a12494f8f7bd304db4ac696/emails/?format=api"
    },
    "sender_name": "Chuck Green",
    "subject": "[eagle] Re: Jim's Phase Noise Number!!",
    "date": "2007-06-12T04:51:41Z",
    "parent": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/ETFWEKVUP7BPCN7ZNYNHJB3CIDWT6KFW/?format=api",
    "children": [
        "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/VYNMIH7JSFBJTYMRXZ2QXRYUD5AL55K2/?format=api"
    ],
    "votes": {
        "likes": 0,
        "dislikes": 0,
        "status": "neutral"
    },
    "content": "Hi Guys,\n\n> There are issues with Tantalums.  From my perspective (and I could be \n> very WRONG!!!!) Lyle, and Chuck Green are AMSAT's corporate knowledge \n> on space-suitable components.  We should make no changes without \n> consulting them, and possibly Jan King as well.  Lou McFadin may have \n> some useful insight, also.\nDon't look for consensus on this topic.  Like most subjects, you can \nfind \"experts\" to support any position you want to take.\n\nWe've used a lot of Tantalums with good success.  My choice is to use \nTantalum rather than Electrolytic whenever possible.  But I lay out PCBs \nand populate them, hence my bias.  I don't normally have to make the \ncircuit work.\n\nThe position taken by Karl Meinzer is that you should never use \nTantalums.  The argument I have heard to support this is that the \nfailure mode of a Tantalum is a short.  Of course, depending on the \ncircuit, if the capacitor fails, it might not make much difference what \nthe failure mode is.  But for many circuits, if the capacitor fails, the \ncircuit will probably keep working if the capacitor does not short.  I \nhave read that this is no longer a problem for modern parts (newer than \nabout 10 years) because it is no longer the failure mode.  I do have one \nrecent experience with this when I put a part in backward which resulted \nin the predictable explosion.  The failure mode... shorted.\n\nNote that the filter capacitors on the CAN-Do! are not Tantalum (except \none).  This is because of Karl's rule.  He did allow the one when we \nseverally de-rated the voltage rating.\n\nElectrolytic capacitors have their own problems.  The biggest is their \ntendency to dry out, especially in a vacuum.  We address this by sealing \nthe open end of the can.  Yes, this creates the potential for an even \nbigger bang, but we haven't seen this yet.  Epoxy has been used.  I also \nuse the conformal coating for this purpose as appropriate.  You are not \nlikely to use conformal coating on an RF circuit because of the bad \nthings it's dialectic constant will likely do to your carefully tuned \ncircuits.\n\nMy advice is to choose the technology that best suits your needs.  They \nboth work and we have a lot of success with both of them when we take \nprecautions as described above.\n\nChuck\n\n\n",
    "attachments": []
}