It's certainly possible the designer made a mistake - especially for electrolytic capacitors, which are rated in such a manner that they "seem" fine unless you do the math. For instance, in a system that only gets "warm", component temperature ratings are generally not a concern, except for electrolytic capacitors. Even a cheap capacitor will typically be rated for 85 degrees, which seems like it should have lots of margin until one reads the fine print and discovers the lifetime is only 1000 hours at this temperature! I know it was a surprise to me as a young designer long ago when I saw that components were specified with such low lifetimes (hard to imagine an application where 1000 hours is sufficient!). Once the derating for temperature and working voltage are applied one discovers that the lifetime is far less than expected.So did the designer make a mistake by not specifying a better C8? Did the designer get second-guessed by the purchasing department, who patted themselves on the back for saving a few pennies by making a "better" choice?
Some may say it's planned obsolescence but I don't buy that. It's my nature to embrace Hanlon's Razor: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." I think stupidity is a far more likely explanation than any evil plan.
by Duane Benson
by Jake Hertz
by Duane Benson
by Jake Hertz