100nF vs. 0.1uF
Joel Koltner
0.1uF (and 200nF vs 0.2uF, etc.)? As far as I can tell, 0.1uF is popular with
older individuals whereas -- at least where I went to school -- "engineering
units" were that the base value was always >=1 and hence you'd use 100nF.
Spehro Pefhany
I like to use `104` ;-)
Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
sp...@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
qrk
<zapwireD...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I'm middle skool and switched from 0.1uF to 100nF. The decimal place
doesn't get lost which is a problem with my eye sight getting worse (I
don't like wearing glasses).
--
Mark
christofire
"Joel Koltner" <zapwireD...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:jHOck.201180$ea6.1...@en-nntp-01.dc1.easynews.com...
uF in the sixties, and nF came along later with other publications like ETI
and Elektor having external (Aus/Euro) influence.
Chris
Jeff Liebermann
<spef...@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:
>On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 11:51:57 -0700, "Joel Koltner"
><zapwireD...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Just curious... how many people out there use 100nF on schematics rather than
>>0.1uF (and 200nF vs 0.2uF, etc.)? As far as I can tell, 0.1uF is popular with
>>older individuals whereas -- at least where I went to school -- "engineering
>>units" were that the base value was always >=1 and hence you'd use 100nF.
When I went to skool, it was micro-microfarads or uuF.
>I like to use `104` ;-)
>Best regards,
>Spehro Pefhany
I like to do everything in pF. Besides driving everyone nuts, it
helps prevent my chronic and apparently incureable order of magnitude
errors. I also like the sound of pF = "puff", which is usually what
happens to my circuits.
0.2uF would be 200,000 pF.
Conversion tool:
<http://www.translatorscafe.com/cafe/units-converter/electrostatic-capacitance/c/>
--
Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
Jim Thompson
Mark, How are you doing with all the fires around Santa Barbara?
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
Leftist weenie Bush-bashing bed wetters, scourge of the world
Due to excessive spam, gmail, googlegroups, UAR, AIOE are blocked!
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
No decimal points.
100n, not 0.1u
100p, not 0.1n
etc
--
Dirk
http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
Remote Viewing classes in London
Adrian Tuddenham
I have preferred to used 100nf for many years, but don't find a problem
with 0.1uf either.
One problem which does occur from time to time (especially with
multi-generation photocopied circuit diagrams) is loss of the decimal
point. This is where the continental system of using the unit as a
decimal point really does have a big advantage. Thus "6.8pf" becomes
"6p8f" and "2.2nf" becomes "2n2f".
I have always found the British Standard symbols for electrolytic
capacitors are confusing (and difficult to draw), so I dug around to
find out what alternatives were available. Eventually I settled for the
pre-war German symbol, which I find completely unambiguous and
self-explanatory:
<http://www.poppyrecords.co.uk/other/Wireamp2.gif>
--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk
Joel Koltner
news:1ijs3jk.1ulor2dwh9ruoN%popp...@ukonline.invalid.invalid...
> <http://www.poppyrecords.co.uk/other/Wireamp2.gif>
I use that style of capacitor symbol for microwave capacitors that have a
"preferred" geometry for mounting. (I.e., you can mount them backwards and
they're still capacitors, but their frequency response is noticeably different
[out past 1GHz] than when they're mounting the other way around.)
Joerg
US clients 0.1uF, foreign clients 100nF. Unless I see something
different on their schematics or they tell me their preference. Same
with part symbols.
For really, really traditional clients it'll be 100 jars :-)
--
Regards, Joerg
http://www.analogconsultants.com/
"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.
John Larkin
Reminds me of the classic "GE circuit" mike/tape/phono preamp, except
that it only used two transistors.
But why the pair of 1 milliohm resistors?
John
John Fields
<spef...@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:
>On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 11:51:57 -0700, "Joel Koltner"
><zapwireD...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Just curious... how many people out there use 100nF on schematics rather than
>>0.1uF (and 200nF vs 0.2uF, etc.)? As far as I can tell, 0.1uF is popular with
>>older individuals whereas -- at least where I went to school -- "engineering
>>units" were that the base value was always >=1 and hence you'd use 100nF.
>
>I like to use `104` ;-)
---
I like 1e-7 ;)
JF
christofire
"John Larkin" <jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:n9n774ljoch4ath3q...@4ax.com...
Same reason as the use of a lower-case f for farads, which is usually
represented by a capital F, and selective use of the omega symbol for ohms -
a capital R is often used for 220 R, for example. I haven't looked but
BS3939 probably gives a consistent set of rules.
Also, a former employee once asked me why I considered it so important
always to insert a space between the number and the unit ... so I typed 21lb
and asked her what it meant. Less ambiguous typed as 21 lb.
Chris
legg
(Adrian Tuddenham) wrote:
I think that nowadays, personal preferences are generally over-ridden
by the exigencies of SW GUIs.
I note that you also don't seem to like crossed wires or connection
dots. This would never fly. I'm a 'loop = no-connection ' guy, myself,
but only when it's pen on paper.
RL
Joel Koltner
news:c0q77413mci103gou...@4ax.com...
> I think that nowadays, personal preferences are generally over-ridden
> by the exigencies of SW GUIs.
CAD programs generally couldn't care less which style you use, although
companies that have a database of components presumably end up having a
certain standard.
> I note that [some] don't seem to like crossed wires or connection
> dots. This would never fly. I'm a 'loop = no-connection ' guy, myself,
> but only when it's pen on paper.
In the vein of, "schematic capture programs are actually rather poor in
adopting conventions from other drawing/CAD programs," most schematic capture
programs don't do the little "loop over an orthogonal wire = no connection"
bit, even though much simpler programs like Visio do. Anyone know of
schematic capture programs that does? Pulsonix doesn't, ORCAD C(r)apture
doesn't, Altium didn't last time I used it...
---Joel
Jim Thompson
Wonder how one would symbolize that so that both ends of the "loop"
would have the same net name?
Charlie Edmondson? Two pins with the same name ?:-)
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
It's what you learn, after you know it all, that counts.
Due to excessive spam, gmail, googlegroups, UAR, and AIOE blocked!
Phil Allison
"Joel Koltner"
** How are the capacitors you use nowadays marked ??
I reckon that should be your guide.
..... Phil
Joel Koltner
news:6dif86F...@mid.individual.net...
> ** How are the capacitors you use nowadays marked ??
Well, the vast bulk of caps I use today are surface mount without markings.
> I reckon that should be your guide.
Different manufacturers' datasheets use different nomenclatures.
---Joel
Phil Allison
"Joel Koltner"
"Phil Allison"
>> ** How are the capacitors you use nowadays marked ??
>
> Well, the vast bulk of caps I use today are surface mount without
> markings.
** All the through hole ones have markings.
>> I reckon that should be your guide.
>
> Different manufacturers' datasheets use different nomenclatures.
** I suggested you look at how caps sold nowadays were marked
- you pedantic fuckhead.
...... Phil
Joel Koltner
> ** I suggested you look at how caps sold nowadays were marked
I guarantee you that well over 90% of the tens of thousands of capacitors
sitting within a few hundred feet of me here have no markings whatsoever on
them.
Even if they were marked, the question was about how capacitors are shown on
schematics -- how capacitors are physical marked may play into this, but it
doesn't have to. (This gets into the classic debate over whether schematic
symbols for connectors should be made to look like the physical part of not --
you can certainly make decent arguments on both sides.)
Spehro Pefhany
<zapwireD...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>"Phil Allison" <phila...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
>news:6digf9F...@mid.individual.net...
>> ** I suggested you look at how caps sold nowadays were marked
>
>I guarantee you that well over 90% of the tens of thousands of capacitors
>sitting within a few hundred feet of me here have no markings whatsoever on
>them.
How are the reels or other packaging marked?
>Even if they were marked, the question was about how capacitors are shown on
>schematics -- how capacitors are physical marked may play into this, but it
>doesn't have to. (This gets into the classic debate over whether schematic
>symbols for connectors should be made to look like the physical part of not --
>you can certainly make decent arguments on both sides.)
Best regards,
Charlie E.
No, probably wouldn't work. Most programs get antsy when multiple
pins have the same names, even ground, and I don't know for sure what
capture would do with it.
Charlie
Phil Allison
"Joel Koltner
> "Phil Allison"
>> ** I suggested you look at how caps sold nowadays were marked
>
> I guarantee you that well over 90% of the tens of thousands of capacitors
> sitting within a few hundred feet of me here have no markings whatsoever
> on them.
>
** Go drop dead - you ASININE fuckhead.
> Even if they were marked, the question was about how capacitors are shown
> on schematics -- how capacitors are physical marked may play into this,
> but it doesn't have to.
** And what did the post from me that you just snipped out of sight say ??
You ASININE fuckhead.
....... Phil
John Larkin
In proper SI scientific notation, 2.2 uF is right. Hacked "electronic"
notations, like 12K6, are tacky.
John
Tim Williams
type µ) usually when something's special about it (e.g. electrolytic). I
rarely use nF, usually to shorten an otherwise insanely long decimal (0.0047
is rather absurd). I always notate pF for values under 1nF.
Tim
--
Deep Friar: a very philosophical monk.
Website: http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms
"Joel Koltner" <zapwireD...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:jHOck.201180$ea6.1...@en-nntp-01.dc1.easynews.com...
Joel Koltner
news:rh5874h859esfiiqi...@4ax.com...
> How are the reels or other packaging marked?
I glanced at two reels... one doesn't have the capacitance value called out
(just has the manufacturer's part number that has the value embedded within
it), another says ".100uF", which I'd suggest is poor because it's only a
+/-10% capacitor so they have too many significant digits and should start
with a leading zero anyway ("0.1uF").
So as I say, different manufacturers do it differently...
Joel Koltner
news:d2j974lm7ufb75e55...@4ax.com...
> None. Use some common sense. It breaks a very basic rule, and the app
> (NO APP) should ever allow it. Same goes for layout packages.
I'm not quite sure what you're responding to, but drawing wires that cross at
right-angles using a little "loop" to indicate there isn't an electrical
connection between the two is a perfectly reasonable practice.
Joel Koltner
> Hacked "electronic"
> notations, like 12K6, are tacky.
I don't think it's tacky, although I don't think there's enough benefit
anymore (especially with most everything done electronically these days -- few
hand-drawn schematics) to bother.
I briefly had a subscription to Elektor magazine while in high school at the
time the schematics were straight re-prints of the English version and used
"12k6"-type notation. Eventually they started re-drawing the schematics to
"Americanize" them, though.
A lot of drafting standards came about due to the limitations of technology
some 50+ or even hundreds of years ago (e.g., all upper case text); with
design entry being done electronically today, a lot of those standards deserve
re-visiting, if only to realize that today many of them are "standards for the
sake of having a standard" (which can be a good thing) rather than "standards
for the sake of preventing some very real problem."
Joel Koltner
> Yes, and none of them are thru hole, dipshit.
You're quite savvy to have figured that out.
> However the draftsman marks them.
Um, that's what the discussion is about -- most people on this board are their
own draftsman for the sake of entering schematics.
> Schematic components NEVER "need" to be shaped like the part they
> represent.
Agreed, but some people like drawing them that way anyway.
Spehro Pefhany
<j...@rstengineering.com> wrote:
>All the disk ceramics and all the polyester (mylar) in my inventory are
>marked "104". That's NOT the way I'd mark them on the schematic ... my
>choice is picofarads through 999, nanofarads through 999, and microfarads
>above. Haven't gotten around to millifarads yet, although by logic I should
>be using mF for 1000 uF and above.
>
>Yes, I started out my first ten years in the biz using mickey-mikes for
>puffs.
>
>Jim
At one place I saw an entire batch of boards get shipped (in product)
that were stuffed with 47 ohm resistor networks (marked 470) rather
than the correct 470 ohm resistor packs (marked 471). The previous
supplier marked them "470 ohms".
Leon
> Just curious... how many people out there use 100nF on schematics rather than
> 0.1uF (and 200nF vs 0.2uF, etc.)? As far as I can tell, 0.1uF is popular with
> older individuals whereas -- at least where I went to school -- "engineering
> units" were that the base value was always >=1 and hence you'd use 100nF.
I've always used nF.
Leon
bill....@ieee.org
I grew up with 0.1uF and went over to 100nF as soon as I started
seeing it on circuit diagrams.
100nF is a lot harder to misread.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Adrian Tuddenham
> On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 21:41:46 +0100, popp...@ukonline.invalid.invalid
> (Adrian Tuddenham) wrote:
>
> >Joel Koltner <zapwireD...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Just curious... how many people out there use 100nF on schematics
> >> rather than 0.1uF (and 200nF vs 0.2uF, etc.)? As far as I can tell,
> >> 0.1uF is popular with older individuals whereas -- at least where
> >> I went to school -- "engineering units" were that the base value
> >> was always=1 and hence you'd use 100nF.
> >
> >I have preferred to used 100nf for many years, but don't find a problem
> >with 0.1uf either.
> >
> >One problem which does occur from time to time (especially with
> >multi-generation photocopied circuit diagrams) is loss of the decimal
> >point. This is where the continental system of using the unit as a
> >decimal point really does have a big advantage. Thus "6.8pf" becomes
> >"6p8f" and "2.2nf" becomes "2n2f".
> >
> >I have always found the British Standard symbols for electrolytic
> >capacitors are confusing (and difficult to draw), so I dug around to
> >find out what alternatives were available. Eventually I settled for the
> >pre-war German symbol, which I find completely unambiguous and
> >self-explanatory:
> ><http://www.poppyrecords.co.uk/other/Wireamp2.gif>
>
> I think that nowadays, personal preferences are generally over-ridden
> by the exigencies of SW GUIs.
Not here they aren't! I use software that allows you to draw symbols
the way you want them.
> I note that you also don't seem to like crossed wires or connection
> dots. This would never fly. I'm a 'loop = no-connection ' guy, myself,
> but only when it's pen on paper.
After looking at hundreds of circuit diagrams in dozens of formats, I
found that the 'T' junstion and gap combination worked best for me. It
does mean avoiding any four-way junctions, but that isn't much of a
problem.
Adrian Tuddenham
I didn't like them when I first met them (about 50 years ago) but I find
the logic of them outweighs the strangeness of their appearance. If
they have to be printed on a small component, the 'continental' format
is certainly a lot more readable in a small sapce - even if it does
involve a certain amount of mental translation afterwards.
Adrian Tuddenham
> On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 21:41:46 +0100, popp...@ukonline.invalid.invalid
> (Adrian Tuddenham) wrote:
>
> >Joel Koltner <zapwireD...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Just curious... how many people out there use 100nF on schematics rather
> >> than0.1uF (and 200nF vs 0.2uF, etc.)? As far as I can tell, 0.1uF
> >> is popular with older individuals whereas -- at least where I went to
> >> uschool -- "engineeringnits" were that the base value was always >=1
>>> and hence you'd use 100nF.
> >
> >I have preferred to used 100nf for many years, but don't find a problem
> >with 0.1uf either.
> >
> >One problem which does occur from time to time (especially with
> >multi-generation photocopied circuit diagrams) is loss of the decimal
> >point. This is where the continental system of using the unit as a
> >decimal point really does have a big advantage. Thus "6.8pf" becomes
> >"6p8f" and "2.2nf" becomes "2n2f".
> >
> >I have always found the British Standard symbols for electrolytic
> >capacitors are confusing (and difficult to draw), so I dug around to
> >find out what alternatives were available. Eventually I settled for the
> >pre-war German symbol, which I find completely unambiguous and
> >self-explanatory:
> ><http://www.poppyrecords.co.uk/other/Wireamp2.gif>
>
> Reminds me of the classic "GE circuit" mike/tape/phono preamp, except
> that it only used two transistors.
>
> But why the pair of 1 milliohm resistors?
Mea culpa - a slip of the finger.
MooseFET
wrote:
> Just curious... how many people out there use 100nF on schematics rather than
> 0.1uF (and 200nF vs 0.2uF, etc.)? As far as I can tell, 0.1uF is popular with
> units" were that the base value was always >=1 and hence you'd use 100nF.
I'm among the "older". I don't use the nano for capacitors at all. I
go from 1000pF to 0.01uF. I do use nH for inductors so it isn't that
I don't use the nano at all.
I think it got started from the way that early makers of parts
produced the parts. The ones down at a pf and up to about 1000pF were
silver mica. Above that the technology switched. If you use uF and
pF but not nF, the value tells you the about technology as well as the
actual value.
MooseFET
> On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 21:41:46 +0100, poppy...@ukonline.invalid.invalid
>
>
>
> (Adrian Tuddenham) wrote:
I go straight across, I use dots for connected and I never allow more
than three connected lines meet at one point. This means that even if
the dot gets lost, you can see that it is connected and you can always
know that two lines that cross are not a 4 way connect.
Someone once saw me doing the jog over at the joint of 4 wires asked
about it and now also does that so I am obviously not th eonly person
that thinks it is a good rule.
>
> RL
MooseFET
Site.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 15:31:02 -0700, "Joel Koltner"
>
>
>
> >"legg" <l...@nospam.magma.ca> wrote in message
> >news:c0q77413mci103gou...@4ax.com...
> >> I think that nowadays, personal preferences are generally over-ridden
> >> by the exigencies of SW GUIs.
>
> >CAD programs generally couldn't care less which style you use, although
> >companies that have a database of components presumably end up having a
> >certain standard.
>
> >> I note that [some] don't seem to like crossed wires or connection
> >> dots. This would never fly. I'm a 'loop = no-connection ' guy, myself,
> >> but only when it's pen on paper.
>
> >In the vein of, "schematic capture programs are actually rather poor in
> >adopting conventions from other drawing/CAD programs," most schematic capture
> >programs don't do the little "loop over an orthogonal wire = no connection"
> >bit, even though much simpler programs like Visio do. Anyone know of
> >schematic capture programs that does? Pulsonix doesn't, ORCAD C(r)apture
> >doesn't, Altium didn't last time I used it...
>
> >---Joel
>
> Wonder how one would symbolize that so that both ends of the "loop"
> would have the same net name?
>
> Charlie Edmondson? Two pins with the same name ?:-)
In the old DOS Orcad, you could do stuff like that. Orcad capture
reformats your hard drive[1] and burns out the monitor if it detects
you trying that. Making a part with multiple pins with the same name
produces a net-list with two nets hooked to the same pin and not all
the same net name.
[1] The standard C program for Windows method of responding to an
error.
Jim Thompson
On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 06:33:27 -0700 (PDT), MooseFET <kens...@rahul.net>
wrote:
>On Jul 8, 3:52 pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@My-Web-
>Site.com> wrote:
[snip]
>>
>> Wonder how one would symbolize that so that both ends of the "loop"
>> would have the same net name?
>>
>> Charlie Edmondson? Two pins with the same name ?:-)
>
>In the old DOS Orcad, you could do stuff like that. Orcad capture
>reformats your hard drive[1] and burns out the monitor if it detects
>you trying that. Making a part with multiple pins with the same name
>produces a net-list with two nets hooked to the same pin and not all
>the same net name.
>
[snip]
Every time I run Crapture it upsets my multi-monitor function and I
have to reboot.
Wonder if a pin can be a "label"?
RST Engineering (jw)
marked "104". That's NOT the way I'd mark them on the schematic ... my
choice is picofarads through 999, nanofarads through 999, and microfarads
above. Haven't gotten around to millifarads yet, although by logic I should
be using mF for 1000 uF and above.
Yes, I started out my first ten years in the biz using mickey-mikes for
puffs.
Jim
--
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought
without accepting it."
--Aristotle
> ** How are the capacitors you use nowadays marked ??
>
> I reckon that should be your guide.
qrk
<To-Email-Use-Th...@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
>
>On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 19:58:15 GMT, qrk <Spam...@spam.net> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 11:51:57 -0700, "Joel Koltner"
>><zapwireD...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Just curious... how many people out there use 100nF on schematics rather than
>>>0.1uF (and 200nF vs 0.2uF, etc.)? As far as I can tell, 0.1uF is popular with
>>>older individuals whereas -- at least where I went to school -- "engineering
>>>units" were that the base value was always >=1 and hence you'd use 100nF.
>>>
>>
>>I'm middle skool and switched from 0.1uF to 100nF. The decimal place
>>doesn't get lost which is a problem with my eye sight getting worse (I
>>don't like wearing glasses).
>
>Mark, How are you doing with all the fires around Santa Barbara?
>
> ...Jim Thompson
I was out of town during the messy part. Lots of ash and charcoaled
leaves and twigs ended up at work, 3 miles from the fire. Following
link are photos my colleague took from work.
http://picasaweb.google.com/qrkpub/GapFire
The populated areas were spared, only because they were able to stop
the fire along orchard edges. We also had very forgiving weather
patterns during the major part of the fire. This fire is a blessing in
disguise - it has now cleared the hills of the 50 years of accumulated
fuel which means Goleta is now safe when the big Santa Ana winds hit.
We have total mismanagement of our front range. Idiotcrats refuse to
do controlled burns on the front range so they end up with $10M bill
instead of a $200k bill. Santa Barbara city front range hasn't burned
for decades and the potential is there to wipe out thousands of homes
in one big fire event.
Our next threat is mud and debris slides if we get a few big rain
storms in our coming rainy season.
--
Mark
Jim Thompson
You can thank the leftist weenie liberal greenies for preventing
controlled burns and clear cutting.
It's going to take a national disaster to get people to wake up and
take these crapheads out. Maybe gasoline and food prices will do the
trick ;-)
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
Vote Barack... Help Make America an Obama-nation
qrk
<To-Email-Use-Th...@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
This isn't a leftist weenie issue. Babbitt, Secretary of the Inferior
during Clinton's reign, was all for controlled burns.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1016/is_n7-8_v101/ai_17099757
Clear cutting isn't an answer either. It promotes mono-cultured
forests which creates problems of its own (disease/blight). If done
right, it's fine.
<soapbox>
It's weenie government agencies needing to execute potentially
dangerous activities. If a controlled burn gets out of hand, then
heads roll. It's happened in our county. Much easier to sit back and
fill out paperwork than to execute difficult actions. The way things
run around here, filling out paperwork & smoozing gets them
promotions. Government employees who do real work and don't fill out
paperwork, attend meetings and political social events are forced out.
This happened with our arborist for the city. It's happened with
friends who worked for the Forest Service locally (one case went to
Federal Court, the other person was given early retirement to keep his
trap shut about his superiors' illegal activities). Now we have a
weenie head arborist for the city who never looks out the window at
the trees he's supposed to deal with. He does a fantastic job of
filling out paperwork.
</soapbox>
--
Mark
Jim Thompson
Babbitt, one of Arizona's worst governors, has no balls to
administrate anything.
>
>Clear cutting isn't an answer either. It promotes mono-cultured
>forests which creates problems of its own (disease/blight). If done
>right, it's fine.
Before the greenies got control here in AZ the loggers did selective
thinning. Now there's virtually no logging in AZ.
>
><soapbox>
>It's weenie government agencies needing to execute potentially
>dangerous activities. If a controlled burn gets out of hand, then
>heads roll. It's happened in our county. Much easier to sit back and
>fill out paperwork than to execute difficult actions. The way things
>run around here, filling out paperwork & smoozing gets them
>promotions. Government employees who do real work and don't fill out
>paperwork, attend meetings and political social events are forced out.
>This happened with our arborist for the city. It's happened with
>friends who worked for the Forest Service locally (one case went to
>Federal Court, the other person was given early retirement to keep his
>trap shut about his superiors' illegal activities). Now we have a
>weenie head arborist for the city who never looks out the window at
>the trees he's supposed to deal with. He does a fantastic job of
>filling out paperwork.
></soapbox>
We need a return to the guillotine ;-)
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
It's what you learn, after you know it all, that counts.
Due to excessive spam, gmail, googlegroups, UAR, and AIOE blocked!
David L. Jones
> Just curious... how many people out there use 100nF on schematics rather than
> 0.1uF (and 200nF vs 0.2uF, etc.)? As far as I can tell, 0.1uF is popular with
> older individuals whereas -- at least where I went to school -- "engineering
> units" were that the base value was always >=1 and hence you'd use 100nF.
I mix'n'match depending upon my preference at the time among other
things.
"0u1" can be handy for those compact schematics where designator space
is at a premium. Quicker to hand write on those back-of-envelope
schematics too.
Dave.
Eeyore
Spehro Pefhany wrote:
> "RST Engineering \(jw\)" <j...@rstengineering.com> wrote:
>
> >All the disk ceramics and all the polyester (mylar) in my inventory are
> >marked "104". That's NOT the way I'd mark them on the schematic ... my
> >choice is picofarads through 999, nanofarads through 999, and microfarads
> >above. Haven't gotten around to millifarads yet, although by logic I should
> >be using mF for 1000 uF and above.
> >
> >Yes, I started out my first ten years in the biz using mickey-mikes for
> >puffs.
>
> At one place I saw an entire batch of boards get shipped (in product)
> that were stuffed with 47 ohm resistor networks (marked 470) rather
> than the correct 470 ohm resistor packs (marked 471). The previous
> supplier marked them "470 ohms".
Don't you just love it ?
When we had a problem batch of 0.1uF / 100n caps that tended to catch fire, the
floor techs always called them '104s'.
I tend to prefer 100n btw. IEC style ennumeration. Like 2R2 or 0R1 and so on.
Graham
Mika Lindblad
> I briefly had a subscription to Elektor magazine while in high school at the
> time the schematics were straight re-prints of the English version and used
> "12k6"-type notation. Eventually they started re-drawing the schematics to
> "Americanize" them, though.
IMHO, 12k6 is better than 12.6k. The little dot might become unreadable, so
12.6k turns into 126k. This won't happen with 12k6.
Adrian Tuddenham
> On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 09:10:43 -0700, "Joel Koltner"
> <zapwireD...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >"AnimalMagic" <Anima...@petersbackyard.org> wrote in message
> >news:d2j974lm7ufb75e55...@4ax.com...
> >> None. Use some common sense. It breaks a very basic rule, and the app
> >> (NO APP) should ever allow it. Same goes for layout packages.
> >
> >I'm not quite sure what you're responding to, but drawing wires that cross at
> >right-angles using a little "loop" to indicate there isn't an electrical
> >connection between the two is a perfectly reasonable practice.
> >
>
>
> And as I said, it is NOT acceptable any longer in any REAL laboratory.
> If the dopes where you are are still attached to the practice, they are
> only 3 decades behind the times. Or they are laypersons, like you
> apparently are, or you would know this FACT.
Thank you for laying down the facts as you see them - however, when you
grow up and gain more experience, you may come to realise that
diffferent conventions may work better in different circumstances.
Eeyore
Mika Lindblad wrote:
I wouldn't dream of using decimal points in values. The failure mode is so
obvious.
Graham
MooseFET
Tuddenham) wrote:
> AnimalMagic <AnimalMa...@petersbackyard.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 09:10:43 -0700, "Joel Koltner"
>
> > >"AnimalMagic" <AnimalMa...@petersbackyard.org> wrote in message
> > >news:d2j974lm7ufb75e55...@4ax.com...
> > >> None. Use some common sense. It breaks a very basic rule, and the app
> > >> (NO APP) should ever allow it. Same goes for layout packages.
>
> > >I'm not quite sure what you're responding to, but drawing wires that cross at
> > >right-angles using a little "loop" to indicate there isn't an electrical
> > >connection between the two is a perfectly reasonable practice.
>
> > And as I said, it is NOT acceptable any longer in any REAL laboratory.
> > If the dopes where you are are still attached to the practice, they are
> > only 3 decades behind the times. Or they are laypersons, like you
> > apparently are, or you would know this FACT.
>
> Thank you for laying down the facts as you see them - however, when you
> grow up and gain more experience, you may come to realise that
> diffferent conventions may work better in different circumstances.
You are new here. You are arguing with one of the many aliases of Dim
Bulb. It is a major time waster. He is always wrong but burns up a
lot of your time yelling and stomping his feet when you point that out
to him. You are best off kill filing him.
MooseFET
wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 08:10:46 -0700, "RST Engineering \(jw\)"
>
> <j...@rstengineering.com> wrote:
> >All the disk ceramics and all the polyester (mylar) in my inventory are
> >marked "104". That's NOT the way I'd mark them on the schematic ... my
> >choice is picofarads through 999, nanofarads through 999, and microfarads
> >above. Haven't gotten around to millifarads yet, although by logic I should
> >be using mF for 1000 uF and above.
>
> >Yes, I started out my first ten years in the biz using mickey-mikes for
> >puffs.
>
> >Jim
>
> that were stuffed with 47 ohm resistor networks (marked 470) rather
> than the correct 470 ohm resistor packs (marked 471). The previous
> supplier marked them "470 ohms".
I've seen many mistakes like that but not any I can think of that made
it out the door. You have to be very careful in how you make your
BOMs.
One TUBE of o-ring lube is very different from one TUB of o-ring
lube. We ended up with enough for about a million years of
production.
"Brass washer" can be understood by some to mean "brass colored
washer"
Rich Grise
Before they figured out to use the units, they replaced the decimal point
with the letter 'R'. You know, back in the days when we had to use clay
tablets at school. ;-)
Cheers!
Rich
Rich Grise
> AnimalMagic <Anima...@petersbackyard.org> wrote:
>> On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 09:10:43 -0700, "Joel Koltner"
>> >news:d2j974lm7ufb75e55...@4ax.com...
>> >> None. Use some common sense. It breaks a very basic rule, and the
>> >> app
>> >> (NO APP) should ever allow it. Same goes for layout packages.
>> >
>> >I'm not quite sure what you're responding to, but drawing wires that
>> >cross at right-angles using a little "loop" to indicate there isn't an
>> >electrical connection between the two is a perfectly reasonable
>> >practice.
>>
>> And as I said, it is NOT acceptable any longer in any REAL laboratory.
>> If the dopes where you are are still attached to the practice, they are
>> only 3 decades behind the times. Or they are laypersons, like you
>> apparently are, or you would know this FACT.
>
> Thank you for laying down the facts as you see them - however, when you
> grow up and gain more experience, you may come to realise that diffferent
> conventions may work better in different circumstances.
Heck, if you're any good, you shouldn't have to cross any wires at all! ;-)
Cheers!
Rich
Charlie E.
wrote:
>On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 15:52:19 -0700, Jim Thompson
><To-Email-Use-Th...@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 15:31:02 -0700, "Joel Koltner"
>><zapwireD...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"legg" <le...@nospam.magma.ca> wrote in message
>>>news:c0q77413mci103gou...@4ax.com...
>>>> I think that nowadays, personal preferences are generally over-ridden
>>>> by the exigencies of SW GUIs.
>>>
>>>CAD programs generally couldn't care less which style you use, although
>>>companies that have a database of components presumably end up having a
>>>certain standard.
>>>
>>>> I note that [some] don't seem to like crossed wires or connection
>>>> dots. This would never fly. I'm a 'loop = no-connection ' guy, myself,
>>>> but only when it's pen on paper.
>>>
>>>In the vein of, "schematic capture programs are actually rather poor in
>>>adopting conventions from other drawing/CAD programs," most schematic capture
>>>programs don't do the little "loop over an orthogonal wire = no connection"
>>>bit, even though much simpler programs like Visio do. Anyone know of
>>>schematic capture programs that does? Pulsonix doesn't, ORCAD C(r)apture
>>>doesn't, Altium didn't last time I used it...
>>>
>>>---Joel
>>>
>>
>>Wonder how one would symbolize that so that both ends of the "loop"
>>would have the same net name?
>>
>>Charlie Edmondson? Two pins with the same name ?:-)
>>
>> ...Jim Thompson
>No, probably wouldn't work. Most programs get antsy when multiple
>pins have the same names, even ground, and I don't know for sure what
>capture would do with it.
>
>Charlie
Ok, was doing a little studying, and found that Altium CAN display
little loops over all the non-connected intersections. Don't know if
you can EDIT in that view yet, or not. Will do more research!
Charlie
Edmondson Engineering
www.edmondsonengineering.com
Joel Koltner
news:23ra7412sje2fd2h9...@4ax.com...
> What size are the parts?
Those are 0603s... I'd guess that at least 95% of all the caps we use are
either 0603s or 0402s these days.
> Once one gets up above 0603, one may find markings on the caps. Said
> markings are very faint, and appear on the base substrate, between the
> terminations. Typically a two figure designation, such as "A3".
Thanks, I'll look for them.
---Joel
Joel Koltner
> And as I said, it is NOT acceptable any longer in any REAL laboratory.
> If the dopes where you are are still attached to the practice, they are
> only 3 decades behind the times.
We don't do it here on regular schematics -- none of our schematic capture
tools support the style, even if we wanted to. And I can't claim to have seen
any "electronic" schematics doing it this way (except rather old ones), but I
do still see plenty of "electrical interconnect" schematics (stuff like how
one box hooks up to another -- PLC wiring, machine control wiring -- the sort
of thing electricians in factories refer to) that do it this way.
> Or they are laypersons, like you
> apparently are, or you would know this FACT.
Can you cite any references to support this "fact?"
Aren't you the same guy who was telling John Larkin he doesn't know how to use
a vapor phase degreaser properly?
Where I work, we're doing contract design and light manufacturing for various
military and commercial entities, so we'll do whatever they want so long as
the work is interesting and we can make money at it. Very few contracts are
so "precise" that they call out *any* standard for schematic drawings. While
the client gets a copy of the schematic, I suspect the vast majority of times
they just file it away somewhere, never to be seen again: They just want a box
that works and is reliable, they don't care that much about our process in
designing them.
---Joel
Jim Thompson
On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 16:11:59 GMT, Charlie E. <edmo...@ieee.org>
wrote:
>On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 02:24:46 GMT, Charlie E. <edmo...@ieee.org>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 15:52:19 -0700, Jim Thompson
>><To-Email-Use-Th...@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
[snip]
>>>
>>>Wonder how one would symbolize that so that both ends of the "loop"
>>>would have the same net name?
>>>
>>>Charlie Edmondson? Two pins with the same name ?:-)
>>>
>>> ...Jim Thompson
>>No, probably wouldn't work. Most programs get antsy when multiple
>>pins have the same names, even ground, and I don't know for sure what
>>capture would do with it.
>>
>>Charlie
>Ok, was doing a little studying, and found that Altium CAN display
>little loops over all the non-connected intersections. Don't know if
>you can EDIT in that view yet, or not. Will do more research!
>
>Charlie
>Edmondson Engineering
>www.edmondsonengineering.com
How about two different pin names, but each pin refers to the same
label name, like ports are actually labels??
Joel Koltner
> I have a new nickname for you.
I think your main problem here is that most of us who have been engineering
for awhile figure that the various different ways of "doing things" generally
have various pros and cons that aren't always obvious at first glance and
therefore find discussing them useful. You seem to be one of those people who
has already decided for yourself that there's one and only one "best" way to
solve any given problem, and anyone who does it differently must just be
wrong.
Maybe you should resurrect the old discussion of whether or not 555 timers
should ever be used in contemporary circuit design?
Joel Koltner
news:23dc74tgj051o45r5...@4ax.com...
> Ok, was doing a little studying, and found that Altium CAN display
> little loops over all the non-connected intersections.
Maybe DimBulb/AnimalMagic will go yell, scream, and stamp his feet outside
their headquarters to protest this and leave us alone for awhile.
JosephKK
<zapwireD...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>"AnimalMagic" <Anima...@petersbackyard.org> wrote in message
>news:sri974haikca2ljk6...@4ax.com...
>> Yes, and none of them are thru hole, dipshit.
>
>You're quite savvy to have figured that out.
>
>> However the draftsman marks them.
>
>Um, that's what the discussion is about -- most people on this board are their
>own draftsman for the sake of entering schematics.
>
>> Schematic components NEVER "need" to be shaped like the part they
>> represent.
>
>Agreed, but some people like drawing them that way anyway.
>
That can be worked until pin counts get up over say 100 or so. I
would like to see someone do that with a 700+ pin device.
Jim Thompson
I have his number... he can't escape NewsProxy ;-)
Joel Koltner
news:nvgc74t4b9i420urf...@4ax.com...
> That can be worked until pin counts get up over say 100 or so. I
> would like to see someone do that with a 700+ pin device.
Yep, figuring out how to draw stuff like big FPGAs is always... interesting.
Some schematic capture/PCB layout packages let you use one schematic symbol
pin to represent multiple PCB footprint pads, so a part with 50 common
grounds, 30 Vcc's, and 20 VccIO's (or whatever) can be cleanly represented
with just three symbol pins for those 100 pads.
JosephKK
wrote:
>On Jul 8, 11:51 am, "Joel Koltner" <zapwireDASHgro...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>> Just curious... how many people out there use 100nF on schematics rather than
>> 0.1uF (and 200nF vs 0.2uF, etc.)? As far as I can tell, 0.1uF is popular with
>> older individuals whereas -- at least where I went to school -- "engineering
>> units" were that the base value was always >=1 and hence you'd use 100nF.
>
>I'm among the "older". I don't use the nano for capacitors at all. I
>go from 1000pF to 0.01uF. I do use nH for inductors so it isn't that
>I don't use the nano at all.
>
>I think it got started from the way that early makers of parts
>produced the parts. The ones down at a pf and up to about 1000pF were
>silver mica. Above that the technology switched. If you use uF and
>pF but not nF, the value tells you the about technology as well as the
>actual value.
>
Yep. It has been ages since i have seen a silver mica cap. By the
way, does anyone here know of say, polystyrene SMT parts? How about
Mylar (TM) or other plastics in SMT?
Spehro Pefhany
Polystyrene has a very low melting point, so it's not suitable for SMT
processing (not to mention lead-free SMT processing). Polyester and
polypropylene are much better, but still unsuitable.
Some newer polymers that are used are PPS (PolyPhenylene Sulfide) and
PEN (PolyEthylene Naphthalate).
Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
sp...@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
Michael A. Terrell
Take a look at this simple javascript I wrote to decode the markings
on SMD capacitors:
http://home.earthlink.net/~mike.terrell/ID/SMD_caps.html
It displays all values in pF. I never got back to it to show larger
values in uF.
--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html
If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm
Sporadic E is the Earth's aluminum foil beanie for the 'global warming'
sheep.
JosephKK
<Ultimat...@thebestcountry.org> wrote:
>On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 17:12:51 -0700, Jim Thompson
><To-Email-Use-Th...@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
>
>>We need a return to the guillotine ;-)
>>
>> ...Jim Thompson
>>--
>
>
> A Devil's Island... Surrounded by GW Sharks. Ran by the inmates...
>super short life expectancies for all convicts! YAY!
>
> If you commit a gun or knife or other deadly weapon involved crime, you
>do NOT EVER get to step on free soil again! PERIOD!
>
> If you rape... LIFE in PRISON... PERIOD!
>
> If you murder... DEATH SENTENCE... PERIOD!
>
> No fucking exceptions. Any mistakes can be sorted out by God.
>
> That's what we need. More prisons and mandatory sentences, AND
>Statistical reporting so that the retarded fucks that cry racism can see
>that it has nothing to do with race.
And then you reveal, again, that crime rate is quite well correlated
to poverty, then what do you do?
JosephKK
Gee, i didn't know you are that old. Could you teach me cuneiform?
What is the spoken language like?
JosephKK
<Anima...@petersbackyard.org> wrote:
> Read it again, dipshit. I even said that it is still in use for HAND
>drawn schematics.
>
> List for me, dipshit, ONE CAD package that strikes intersecting lines
>with little loop over drawings. They do not. They are 100% clear as to
>what defines a node when two lines intersect, and that HAS been a
>CONVENTION for fucking DECADES, you stupid twit.
>
> Thank you for spewing horseshit as you want the world to see it.
Stuff your excessive intolerance where it belongs. From there is can
be excreted and sent to a proper waste treatment facility.
JosephKK
Maybe. It could be that the lack of foul language fooled me. If so
it can't keep it up for long.
Joel Koltner
news:28mdnQFsKq51x-vV...@earthlink.com...
> Take a look at this simple javascript I wrote to decode the markings
Neat, thanks!
Adrian Tuddenham
> On Jul 10, 1:24 am, poppy...@ukonline.invalid.invalid (Adrian
> Tuddenham) wrote:
> > AnimalMagic <AnimalMa...@petersbackyard.org> wrote:
> > > On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 09:10:43 -0700, "Joel Koltner"
> > > <zapwireDASHgro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > >"AnimalMagic" <AnimalMa...@petersbackyard.org> wrote in message
> > > >news:d2j974lm7ufb75e55...@4ax.com...
> > > >> None. Use some common sense. It breaks a very basic rule, and
>>>> the app
> > > >> (NO APP) should ever allow it. Same goes for layout packages.
> >
> > > >I'm not quite sure what you're responding to, but drawing wires that
>>>cross at
> > > >right-angles using a little "loop" to indicate there isn't an electrical
> > > >connection between the two is a perfectly reasonable practice.
> >
> > > And as I said, it is NOT acceptable any longer in any REAL laboratory.
> > > If the dopes where you are are still attached to the practice, they are
> > > only 3 decades behind the times. Or they are laypersons, like you
> > > apparently are, or you would know this FACT.
> >
> > Thank you for laying down the facts as you see them - however, when you
> > grow up and gain more experience, you may come to realise that
> > diffferent conventions may work better in different circumstances.
>
> You are new here. You are arguing with one of the many aliases of Dim
> Bulb.
I didn't recognise him by who he was but I did recognise him for what he
was. I thought a little gentle irony would wind him up nicely - and it
did!
> It is a major time waster. He is always wrong but burns up a
> lot of your time yelling and stomping his feet when you point that out
> to him. You are best off kill filing him.
Done - with pleasure.
Michael A. Terrell
You're welcome. You can download the zipped file and install it on
your computer, or computers availible to your ssemblers.
JosephKK
Oh boy. It must be real fun making PCB layout and Schematic capture
play nice with each other for parts like that.
JosephKK
Thanks, it is good to know that these alternatives exist.
JosephKK
And some folks will take it as a military kiss up.
Spehro Pefhany
Why? The netlist would just show all those pads connected to a single
net (GND or Vdd or whatever) and the layout program would take it from
there. The only hassle might come in if you wanted to separate them
for some perverse reason.
Eeyore
Rich Grise wrote:
I use that method now such as 3R3 or 60k4.
It's unbeatably simple and unambiguous.
Graham
krw
quiett...@yahoo.com says...
--
Keith
MooseFET
> On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 06:20:02 -0700 (PDT), MooseFET <kensm...@rahul.net>
There are no SMT film capacitors that can be trusted. The PPS film
capacitors are the most common sort of SMT ones they will sell you,
but I suggest you pass them by. They are extremely fragile.
In the leaded types you can still get film capacitors.
Jim Thompson
And a few others he bounces around to.
krw
Use-The-En...@My-Web-Site.com says...
They're all 72.197.134..., AFAIK. He just gets a different IP
address assigned every few weeks.
--
Keith
JosephKK
<spef...@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:
>On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 15:59:00 -0700, the renowned JosephKK
><quiett...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 10:29:17 -0700, "Joel Koltner"
>><zapwireD...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"JosephKK" <quiett...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:nvgc74t4b9i420urf...@4ax.com...
>>>> That can be worked until pin counts get up over say 100 or so. I
>>>> would like to see someone do that with a 700+ pin device.
>>>
>>>Yep, figuring out how to draw stuff like big FPGAs is always... interesting.
>>>
>>>Some schematic capture/PCB layout packages let you use one schematic symbol
>>>pin to represent multiple PCB footprint pads, so a part with 50 common
>>>grounds, 30 Vcc's, and 20 VccIO's (or whatever) can be cleanly represented
>>>with just three symbol pins for those 100 pads.
>>>
>>
>> Oh boy. It must be real fun making PCB layout and Schematic capture
>>play nice with each other for parts like that.
>
>Why? The netlist would just show all those pads connected to a single
>net (GND or Vdd or whatever) and the layout program would take it from
>there. The only hassle might come in if you wanted to separate them
>for some perverse reason.
>
>
>
>
>Best regards,
>Spehro Pefhany
Oh foo. I embarrassed myself again.
JosephKK
Yep. Sometimes it is the right part for the job.