SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Amy J who wrote (105781)7/18/2000 10:34:33 AM
From: Tony Viola  Read Replies (4) | Respond to of 186894
 
Amy, >In certain environments TCs smoke. And, in certain environments, ceramic caps smoke too. A wise engineer knows when to use one over the other.


Getting too far off the semiconductor/Intel subject, and giving more attention to JJ of SSB, but: tantalum caps have far more "opportunity" to smoke because they're polarized. Don't design them in backwards.

Putting any more than a minute amount of attention on the capacitor situation when analyzing semis supply and demand is like trying to derive info about car engines' supply from sales of speakers. That's not car speakers, but any speakers. Caps are used everywhere in electronics, like speakers are used everywhere in sound systems.

I liked your other post about Kumar being savvy. He spent time in the industry (Intel?) so he doggone well understands it. What's the background of most other analysts? Finance and business I imagine. Nothing wrong with those, but technology is not exactly a piece of cake to keep up with. Niles must also have spent some time at a semi, or related company. Intel also rings a remote memory bell. If not, he's done his homework.

Tony



To: Amy J who wrote (105781)7/18/2000 2:06:40 PM
From: Jules B. Garfunkel  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 186894
 
Amy,
At the risk of further complicating these misunderstandings.
I was not apologizing for anything, I was just stating that I felt bad that you spent such a long time writing your post, only to correct yourself in your very next post.

I suggest you go back and reread my two posts, (to John and to You). I think you will find that we are pretty much in agreement.
Regards,
Jules