My new Seasonic has questionable caps.

[acstech]

Re: My new Seasonic has questionable caps.

...but I can't really ding Pc Power and Cooling for Teapo's because the units DO last in the field.

So far. Have you opened one up after 3 or so years and actually checked the caps?

[Spectre]

Re: My new Seasonic has questionable caps.

So far. Have you opened one up after 3 or so years and actually checked the caps?

Yes the original 510 ATX I used to tune everything was good to go visually and on the oscilloscope. Though it really needed to be cleaned.

Like I said I really can't honestly ding PC Power and Cooling for using Teapos because they do last. I can comment that they use them but dinging them would be dishonest.

There is one other thing at play here that is probably missed. I don't have the same the luxuries you guys (ie anonymous posters) do. I can't spout off random crap about companies or their products and not expect their be someone to take me to task for my claims. I am not anonymous on the internet, my name is at the top of all my reviews, as is my contact information, as is my employer. If I say company X's product has substandard components that will fail in x amount of time and I bag on them which can literally kill their sales I had better be able to prove it or my ass is grass. If I say something that is NOT something that can be proven by the data I have accumulated in my testing I am lying to both the reader and the company whose product I am reviewing. If I was an anonymous single poster going after me for libel would not be worth the effort but since I am not it very well can be. So everything I write has to come from what can be proven.

[acstech]

Re: My new Seasonic has questionable caps.

Here's how you might get around that.

In addition to testing the whole power supply, test capacitors! That way, you can say "these caps fail when exposed to x amount of ripple current for y amount of time at z temperature, which is contrary to their published specifications." Then, "Brand X power supplies use brand Y capacitors, which are known to have issues according to our testing. This may negatively affect the life of the unit."

The other thing is, even if the unit does survive with bad caps in it, the fact remains that there are bad caps in it. It's not like it's going to live a longer life with those in it than it would have with good caps. The life time with bad caps will be less than or equal to the life time with good caps. It's not going to be better, that's for sure. Make that clear to your readers.

There are many ways a manufacturer could design around bad caps. Adding extra caps in parallel, increasing the voltage rating, extra cooling, etc. The fact remains that they are there, just waiting to cause problems. All they're doing is delaying the inevitable. And without testing a power supply for 3-5 years, you don't know if they did that or not. I suppose you could look at the circuit and make an educated guess.

Then, when you look at the price for good caps, using Teapo still doesn't make sense. When you can show what it would cost for good caps, then you have a whole lot more wiggle room to ding 'em for bad caps.

[PCBONEZ]

Re: My new Seasonic has questionable caps.

Spectre

You've said nothing to change my opinion here other than I misunderstood what you meant by 'BOM' the first time through.

As to that, the Bill Of Materials for a decent PSU being around $50 is EXACTLY what I said in the first place.

Thank you for backing me up on that.

~~~~

And I'll point out yet again with your term.
The difference in the 'BOM' in using crap caps vs quailty caps is...
LESS THAN ONE US DOLLAR
I don't care how low end the PSU is...
THERE IS NO EXCUSE...

If you are not catering to advertisers then why is this not stressed in your magazine?
Do your readers LIKE to get ripped off?
Shhh! Don't tell them. We might loose an account!

There is a similar small difference in other parts that make a difference such as MOSFETs, transformers, diodes and such (of which there are simply not that many in a PSU) and so for that too:
There is no excuse for using crap parts.

The difference between high-end and low-end should be FEATURES.
Not the quality of the parts.

The exaggerated difference between high end and low end prices (as Starfury1 put it) is Milking the Cow.
I will NEVER respect companies that do that.
(Nor publications that encourage it by allowing Milking the Cow to slide.)

With the difference between good and crap being like $15+/- if they have room to 'cost down' and lower the price $30, $40, $50 it's plain and simple the original unit is at a rip-off price.
-
Why don't you do an article on that.

~~~~

Sorry but I know a hell of a lot more about cooling electronics and air flow than you think. I worked with equipment that had to operate reliably inside the compartment of an operating Nuclear Reactor. I've had formal training in that area. I've had to sit down and component by component calculate the heat dissipation, surface areas, airflow, and temperature rises and put it all into heat transfer equations to determine how much cooling is needed do keep componet surface temps below a specified value.
NO! I am NOT doing that for a PSU. It's a pain in the ass.
But I don't need to.
It's obvious that PSUs cooling is over stressed and generally over built.
.
The only heat disipated inside the PSU is that lost due to efficency.
The bulk of the heat is dissipated inside the case.
-
There is no reason to change the air in a PSU out at a faster rate that is done for the case.
You simply do not need to change out the air 471 times a minute for adequate cooling.
You do need to be concerned with air flow paths but using two fans doesn't do that.
Using excessive air flow is a lame way the get around a working out a proper cooling cooling solution.

Your argument is bogus.
My argument is completely correct yet intentionally flawed. (Minor but still a flaw.)
I'm surprised that you being 'all knowing' about computers and all completely missed the flaw.
(Well, not really surprised... I expected you to miss it. Not the other members here too.)

~~~~

The PSUs I used to work with (in days of old, when I had hair, and long before I even looked inside a PC) were about the size of a 5U rack mount, weighed approx 450 pounds, had +/- 48 redundant but independent rails at various voltages. They had to maintain voltage within +/- .0005 vdc to avoid a protective shutdown. - They were designed in the 1960's. There were 64 of those units on site. Each was feed (through a backplane) to what amounted to 7 computers in 3U chassis.

A computer's PSU is built on the same OLD principal they used and simply not that complicated in comparison.

Incidentally that last two years I worked for that organization I was a Quality Assurance Inspector for the overall plant.
Electrical, mechanical, electronics, machining, electroplating, welding, everything...
Our QA program was adopted by NASA after the shuttle accident.
Unlike other people you blow smoke to, I am not clueless as to how to do a proper engineering evaluation of a piece of equipment. I did it for a living on equipment much more critical (and touchy) than a PC.

~~~~

People don't give a rats as about MOSFETs because editors of magazines don't concern them selves with eductating their readers as to what really matters.
-
I'd have to call that a lack of concern for telling the whole and real truth.
You can't leave out an evaluation of a major and critical part and call that thorough.
You can't call an incomplete evaluation doing a service to your readers.
-
Go ahead. Let your readers be dumb. It makes your job easier. - Right?
Just tell them fans are important.
Then you can write about fans all day and not think too much.

Sarcasm aside, you do a better evaluation than most publications.
[ But that's not necessarily saying much. ]
My comments (most of them) were directed at the typical reviews.
Not specifically yours.

I have recently seen reviews by another publication where the PSU is completely disassembled and the ratings to each critical part are examined and their effect on the claimed output of the PSU discussed.
You reviews are good but certainly not the most advanced.

~~~~

YOU evaluate something I build for me. - Why?
I have no intention of selling PSUs.
If you thought that you were wrong.
You are melding two trains of thought into one.

Even if that's where I was going I would have an engineer look at my design, not a publisher. I see no benefit in having an entity more concerned with a publishing deadline than in doing a thorough evaluation look at something I build. Why would I want someone that is going to bless off critical elements of a design because "no one gives a rats ass about that" to be the one that looks at the product?

~~~~

If the rebuilt PSUs you test fail then get them rebuilt by a professional electronics tech instead of Billy-Joe-Jim-Bob the A+ tech down in the mail room.

PSU's that fail load tests from the get-go obviously have under rated components.
Why would you think just replacing the caps would change that?
Why would you think that replacing the caps and testing them again would yield different results?
-
I don't even follow the line of thought that would lead someone to do that.
It seems ridiculous (pointless) to even TRY.
Yet, by what you said, you have done it repeatedly.

~~~~

Despite your sign-up date you are a newbie here.
If you object to being welcomed then .............

~~~~

I hope you are as entertained by me as I am by you.
Thanks for the laugh.

.

[PCBONEZ]

Re: My new Seasonic has questionable caps.

An we don't have the luxury of having a staff to run around and do all the research for us.

[Spectre]

Re: My new Seasonic has questionable caps.

Here's how you might get around that.

In addition to testing the whole power supply, test capacitors! That way, you can say "these caps fail when exposed to x amount of ripple current for y amount of time at z temperature, which is contrary to their published specifications." Then, "Brand X power supplies use brand Y capacitors, which are known to have issues according to our testing. This may negatively affect the life of the unit."

I could do that and there are lots of things I would like to do in each review that I don't do because the issue as it stands is that the least read page per article is build quality followed by transient testing. Right now I am lucky that those little excursions of mine are tolerated but they add real man hour cost to the review. To expand more I would have a hard time justifying to the budget why we should buy additional equipment and spend more per review to do them when it doesn't generate the additional page hits. I know that isn't the popular answer but page hits are what pays the bills and the bills for doing this are substantial. If I don't cover my costs with page hits there won't be any reviews at all.

If you got an ideas on driving the page hits legitimately to fund expansion I'm all ears though.

The other thing is, even if the unit does survive with bad caps in it, the fact remains that there are bad caps in it. It's not like it's going to live a longer life with those in it than it would have with good caps. The life time with bad caps will be less than or equal to the life time with good caps. It's not going to be better, that's for sure. Make that clear to your readers.

No and that is understood I just hope you understand/appreciate now why we can't fail a unit that passes all the testing. It is a fine line that I try and walk .

There are many ways a manufacturer could design around bad caps. Adding extra caps in parallel, increasing the voltage rating, extra cooling, etc. The fact remains that they are there, just waiting to cause problems. All they're doing is delaying the inevitable. And without testing a power supply for 3-5 years, you don't know if they did that or not. I suppose you could look at the circuit and make an educated guess.

I have a doozy of a one coming up.

Then, when you look at the price for good caps, using Teapo still doesn't make sense.

Well to us it doesn't because we are looking at only one or a handful of units....but on the financial side for the business it makes a lot of difference. I know for one particular power supply that is coming out soon that the price from going from Teapo to Nippon Chemi-con for the whole unit was between $3 and $5 (the price change quoted from the OEM so their unit went from x to x+3 or 5 even though the capacitor cost alone may not have been all of that price change). Now multiply that times their volume and the bean counters take notice. The brand doing this chose to add the cost in the end, however, it is a gamble. $3 a unit at the wholesale level is going to end up being considerably more at the retail level as the additional price compounds up through the pricing/tax structure and is not just an on top cost as most people seem to assume it is which is why the OEM didn't originally pitch it that way. They are trying to win business on a cost basis. With pricing that way they (the brand not the OEM the OEM gets their money) are now cutting into their margin and in all likely hood their sales volume with no guarantee that they will significantly increase their market share in the process or make more money. I have dealt with small manufacturers and the margins aren't as good as one would hope....and with everyone taking their chunk from the OEM to the Brand to the Retailer....the OEM is under considerable pressure to shave that $3-5 to move their product (*cough*Topower is notorious for doing this mid product stream*cough*).

I know that isn't popular to say but it is the business reality of the issue and these are business's that sell to a crowd where 99.9999% of the people really don't care how they shave the price as long as it works. Once one person starts doing that it makes the business model of doing it differently incredibly difficult to workout financially....no matter how much we or monday morning quarterbacks say it isn't so.

[Spectre]

Re: My new Seasonic has questionable caps.

You've said nothing to change my opinion here other than I misunderstood what you meant by 'BOM' the first time through.

As to that, the Bill Of Materials for a decent PSU being around $50 is EXACTLY what I said in the first place.

Thank you for backing me up on that.

Right for a decent power supply in that is true the BOM is about that range (and when I say decent I don't mean high quality.)...but that isn't the only cost that goes into a product. People who have always been employees and don't run business's always make the mistake of thinking items should or can be sold at the cost of the components. That simply is not the case.

And I'll point out yet again with your term.
The difference in the 'BOM' in using crap caps vs quailty caps is...
LESS THAN ONE US DOLLAR
I don't care how low end the PSU is...
THERE IS NO EXCUSE...

I know for a fact that the additioanl cost for moving from Teapo to Nippon Chemi-con on an upcoming power supply was $3-5 per unit.

If you are not catering to advertisers then why is this not stressed in your magazine?
Do your readers LIKE to get ripped off?

Becasue they simply don't care. See above.

Shhh! Don't tell them. We might loose an account!

Actually at this juncture I have lost all of the advertsers I brought in.

There is a similar small difference in other parts that make a difference such as MOSFETs, transformers, diodes and such (of which there are simply not that many in a PSU) and so for that too:
There is no excuse for using crap parts.

The difference between high-end and low-end should be FEATURES.
Not the quality of the parts.

The exaggerated difference between high end and low end prices (as Starfury1 put it) is Milking the Cow.
I will NEVER respect companies that do that.
(Nor publications that encourage it by allowing Milking the Cow to slide.)

With the difference between good and crap being like $15+/- if they have room to 'cost down' and lower the price $30, $40, $50 it's plain and simple the original unit is at a rip-off price.
-
Why don't you do an article on that.

Sorry but I know a hell of a lot more about cooling electronics and air flow than you think. I worked with equipment that had to operate reliably inside the compartment of an operating Nuclear Reactor. I've had formal training in that area. I've had to sit down and component by component calculate the heat dissipation, surface areas, airflow, and temperature rises and put it all into heat transfer equations to determine how much cooling is needed do keep componet surface temps below a specified value.
NO! I am NOT doing that for a PSU. It's a pain in the ass.
But I don't need to.
It's obvious that PSUs cooling is over stressed and generally over built.
.
The only heat disipated inside the PSU is that lost due to efficency.
The bulk of the heat is dissipated inside the case.
-
There is no reason to change the air in a PSU out at a faster rate that is done for the case.
You simply do not need to change out the air 471 times a minute for adequate cooling.
You do need to be concerned with air flow paths but using two fans doesn't do that.
Using excessive air flow is a lame way the get around a working out a proper cooling cooling solution.

Your argument is bogus.
My argument is completely correct yet intentionally flawed. (Minor but still a flaw.)
I'm surprised that you being 'all knowing' about computers and all completely missed the flaw.
(Well, not really surprised... I expected you to miss it. Not the other members here too.)

~~~~

What arguement?

The PSUs I used to work with (in days of old, when I had hair, and long before I even looked inside a PC) were about the size of a 5U rack mount, weighed approx 450 pounds, had +/- 48 redundant but independent rails at various voltages. They had to maintain voltage within +/- .0005 vdc to avoid a protective shutdown. - They were designed in the 1960's. There were 64 of those units on site. Each was feed (through a backplane) to what amounted to 7 computers in 3U chassis.

A computer's PSU is built on the same OLD principal they used and simply not that complicated in comparison.

Incidentally that last two years I worked for that organization I was a Quality Assurance Inspector for the overall plant.
Electrical, mechanical, electronics, machining, electroplating, welding, everything...
Our QA program was adopted by NASA after the shuttle accident.
Unlike other people you blow smoke to, I am not clueless as to how to do a proper engineering evaluation of a piece of equipment. I did it for a living on equipment much more critical (and touchy) than a PC.

~~~~

And I flew to the moon...on the back of a dragon.

People don't give a rats as about MOSFETs because editors of magazines don't concern them selves with eductating their readers as to what really matters.
-
I'd have to call that a lack of concern for telling the whole and real truth.
You can't leave out an evaluation of a major and critical part and call that thorough.
You can't call an incomplete evaluation doing a service to your readers.
-
Go ahead. Let your readers be dumb. It makes your job easier. - Right?
Just tell them fans are important.
Then you can write about fans all day and not think too much.

Sarcasm aside, you do a better evaluation than most publications.
[ But that's not necessarily saying much. ]
My comments (most of them) were directed at the typical reviews.
Not specifically yours.

I have recently seen reviews by another publication where the PSU is completely disassembled and the ratings to each critical part are examined and their effect on the claimed output of the PSU discussed.
You reviews are good but certainly not the most advanced.

~~~~

Well if all you want is a circulation of a couple hundred readers go for it. But people do not read the parts that I get the liberty to spread in there let alone get more detailed. So sure go read Gabbe's stuff he does a great job but it doesn't draw the readers neccesary to pay the bills around here.

YOU evaluate something I build for me. - Why?
I have no intention of selling PSUs.
If you thought that you were wrong.
You are melding two trains of thought into one.

Even if that's where I was going I would have an engineer look at my design, not a publisher. I see no benefit in having an entity more concerned with a publishing deadline than in doing a thorough evaluation look at something I build. Why would I want someone that is going to bless off critical elements of a design because "no one gives a rats ass about that" to be the one that looks at the product?

~~~~

Its funny every time some tells me they can do build a power supply and do it better it never materializes. Lots of excuses, not so much product. I wonder why that is.....

If the rebuilt PSUs you test fail then get them rebuilt by a professional electronics tech instead of Billy-Joe-Jim-Bob the A+ tech down in the mail room.

Been done.

PSU's that fail load tests from the get-go obviously have under rated components.
Why would you think just replacing the caps would change that?
Why would you think that replacing the caps and testing them again would yield different results?
-
I don't even follow the line of thought that would lead someone to do that.
It seems ridiculous (pointless) to even TRY.
Yet, by what you said, you have done it repeatedly.

~~~~

Becasue they weren't tested from teh get go. Units that had been recapped because of failure were. Then when they failed new units were tested. They failed. As such the unit never would have been recommended even before the caps were known.

[PCBONEZ]

Re: My new Seasonic has questionable caps.

I know for a fact that the additional cost for moving from Teapo to Nippon Chemi-con on an upcoming power supply was $3-5 per unit.

Give me the cap sizes and I'll show you different.

~

[PCBONEZ]

Re: My new Seasonic has questionable caps.

At per/1000 unit prices the entire cost to cap a TP2 with Chemicon is $1.68.
That's without reducing the cost by the value of the origional caps.

[Spectre]

Re: My new Seasonic has questionable caps.

I know for a fact that the additional cost for moving from Teapo to Nippon Chemi-con on an upcoming power supply was $3-5 per unit.

Give me the cap sizes and I'll show you different.

~

I am aware of wholesale price differences. Like I said:

I know for one particular power supply that is coming out soon that the price from going from Teapo to Nippon Chemi-con for the whole unit was between $3 and $5 (the price change quoted from the OEM so their unit went from x to x+3 or 5 even though the capacitor cost alone may not have been all of that price change).

You are again making the employee mistake and this is not a TP2.

[PCBONEZ]

Re: My new Seasonic has questionable caps.

I like dragons.
You show me your dragon and I'll show you my certs.
(I want a ride though... That's part if the deal...)

[PCBONEZ]

Re: My new Seasonic has questionable caps.

Give me the cap sizes then.

[PCBONEZ]

Re: My new Seasonic has questionable caps.

You are repeating the info the manufacturer feed you without looking into it.
Give me the cap quantity and sizes.

[Spectre]

Re: My new Seasonic has questionable caps.

I like dragons.
You show me your dragon and I'll show you my certs.
(I want a ride though... That's part if the deal...)

Well since neither exists........

You are repeating the info the manufacturer feed you without looking into it.
Give me the cap quantity and sizes.

Lets think about this for a minute. Its an unreleased product and you continue to make the employee mistake, not going to happen until its retail available.

[PCBONEZ]

Re: My new Seasonic has questionable caps.

I'm having trouble translating this into English....

Becasue they weren't tested from teh get go. Units that had been recapped because of failure were. Then when they failed new units were tested. They failed. As such the unit never would have been recommended even before the caps were known.

If I follow it...
What does that have to do with what started this sub-tread?
-
Your claim was that recapped units fail.
What does that have to do with testing new replacements?
Further, what does recapping units that failed for reasons other than caps have to do with the reliability of recapping units that failed because of caps.

.

.

[PCBONEZ]

Re: My new Seasonic has questionable caps.

I don't care what the product is.
Just need the list and count of caps.
That give nothing away about anything.

You don't have a list because you didn't look into it.

[Spectre]

Re: My new Seasonic has questionable caps.

I'm having trouble translating this into English....

Becasue they weren't tested from teh get go. Units that had been recapped because of failure were. Then when they failed new units were tested. They failed. As such the unit never would have been recommended even before the caps were known.

If I follow it...
What does that have to do with what started this sub-tread?
-
Your claim was that recapped units fail.
What does that have to do with testing new replacements?
Further, what does recapping units that failed for reasons other than caps have to do with the reliability of recapping units that failed because of caps.

.

.

THis all started because a friend asked me to look at a recapped unit. After some interesting results there.

I looked at some units that someone else who was pulling from service because of bad caps and wanted to recap to redeploy. The units that were recapped failed originally because of the caps. The units where then recapped. Once tested they failed. So after going "gee that's funny" lets get some brand new units and see what happens. Those were tested and they failed........and it was before the caps. So.........had someone load tested these units prior to this they would never have been recommended or put into service because they failed. And noone would ever have cared what caps they had in them because they would never have made from load test to being gutted to see what caps it had in it.

[Spectre]

Re: My new Seasonic has questionable caps.

I don't care what the product is.
Just need the list and count of caps.
That give nothing away about anything.

You don't have a list because you didn't look into it.

<shrug> Sure </shrug>

If the person who provided the unit wants to provide that information they can...but I am not releasing it because I really rather keep my contacts.

Someone who worked for NASA surely knows that you can't do things like that.

[acstech]

Re: My new Seasonic has questionable caps.

If you got an ideas on driving the page hits legitimately to fund expansion I'm all ears though.

Simple. Draw attention to the problem. See how some popular PSU's of 2-3 years ago are doing now. You want page hits? People absolutely love seeing things blow up. Go find some with bad, possibly leaking caps, test away. Then, after the units fail spectacularly, you can stress why what you're doing, and capacitor selection, is so important. Throw in a couple with Teapo's that somehow are still clinging on to life, and a few with mildly bulging caps, and a few good leakers. Preferrably from a cross-section of the market, meaning low end through high end.

Which will generate page hits for subsequent PSU reviews and put you in a better position to talk about cap selection, and electronics / build quality in general. Maybe it would wake up a few people to the issue. As an added benefit, your advertisers could potentially get more sales as people reconsider using their old PSU and instead buy new ones.

[PCBONEZ]

Re: My new Seasonic has questionable caps.

So your generalization about all PSU's that are recapped is based on a very small sample size of a problem model of PSU.

How is it that you determined the caps failing caused the failure rather than some other defect causing the caps to fail.
-
Caps are very unlikely to case a failure on a load tester.
If it failed on a load tester with new caps then it's not the caps causing the problem.
More likely under rated MOSFETs or tranformers which you didn't change.
.