It would be determined mostly by the dimensional stability of the polymer they're injecting.

I suspect as with wood you'd see more expansion perpendicular to the grain compared to parallel to the grain because of the effect of the cellulose fibers all running in the same direction.

Yeah, that part wouldn't change.

> Probably the more compelling answer is that the industry doesn't' really want them to for the most part.

This is it. Everyone is making money hand over fist despite not doing it. You might want it, but you don't need it.

Sad but true.

Speaking from experience in vehicle firmware, the controller component belongs to a separate profession.

They gave a list of characteristics that differentiate one human vowel sound from another, and showed that the whale clicks have all of the same types of differentiators.

They're being silly. A, D, and M are as recognizable as FAANG.

AMD!

;)

Doing nothing (stasis) has resulted in lower affordability (decline). Your framing is equally valid and incomplete because it's not a binary choice.

ELV is not a fundamental definition of "safe". The limits of what's safe depends on the application and your risk tolerance, and ELV is just a name for a couple of definitions out of many.

Also, those numbers are for ripple-free DC, which you're not going to find in a car. They're cut roughly in half for ripple peaks.

So many patents these days are old ideas described with very specific qualifiers to circumvent the prior art disqualifier.

Optimizing Digikey prices is a bit of an oxymoron, isn't it? They're expensive because they're fast.

Also, specs aren't well standardized between manufacturers. TI has some good videos explaining what their power MOSFET specs mean and how those definitions vary across the industry.

Automatic optimization can only get you so far.

Aware of all this but none of it justifies a poor part search experience. And this isn't pinching pennies; sometimes we're talking about a two order of magnitude cost difference, especially when your initial hoped-for specs result in just a few options that are all rare military-grade things. Furthermore usually, if part A is $10 on digikey and part B is $1, then even when you find a different supplier or order direct from manufacturers, part B will usually be cheaper than part A on a relative basis, even if the price difference becomes something like $2 vs $0.50.

If there's a part that would have worked better, but you weren't able to find it, that's a problem with search.

Furthermore, cost is just as an example, the same applies if you're looking to minimize package size, temperature rise, power loss, etc. Any component selection is an optimization process and ideally, a good search and filtering will enable you to sort for exactly the specs you need to find the best component candidates more quickly. Maybe that doesn't mean filtering by price, but by (voltage*quiescent current + conduction loss + switching loss), and so on. Or (rise time + propagation delay), etc. Of course you still need to read the datasheet to make sure. We're just talking about better search to find the parts that meet your actual requirement. The point of good search is it should do the mechanical work for you of finding parts, rather than making you try different parameter combinations again and again by hand.

Digikey is still the best, but that doesn't even mean it's good.

Maybe a better way of phrasing what I'm trying to say is it sounds like you're relying too much on metadata search for what you're trying to accomplish. I agree that the search is bad for the way you're using it.

You say that like there's something almost un-professional about aspiring to sort a list of capacitors by stored energy.

Does scripting get the job done for you? You're at the point where everyone has different objectives and methods, so it's no surprise that you have to make your own solution.