Parts values on schematic question

ic a long time ago.

That explains a lot! I've always seen people get pints or half pints and I thought half a pint, a cup, is not much beer or even orange juice (often s erved in tiny glasses in breakfast restaurants here). But a half pint in G B is 10 ounces which is nearly a 12 oz can of beer here. Now I have much m

ream in 20 oz pints!

t.

So a snail's pace is 1 furlong per fortnight?

Rick C.

You seem to do a lot of work for scientists, and you describe yourself as a n engineer. You may be confusing the personal with the professional.

The real problem is that scientists and engineers have different expectatio ns. For a scientist a circuit that works is one that a graduate student can get running, and keep running for the length of a research project.

Ideas like tolerancing, calibration and thermal dissipation limits are unne cessary refinements.

ion)

one.

aper, as it avoids dot deterioration causing errors. Naturally paper data i s less common now, but still in widespread use. It's not a new system. We u se the method on printed paper that is liable to degrade in use. It's much more of an issue in the developing world.

John Larkin doesn't get it. The units of measurement aren't part of the num erical value of the constant being expressed.

c = 299.8M m/sec

But the rareness isn't increasing as fast as it ought to.

An American pint is very close to 5/6 of an Imperial pint, rather than

There are fewer ounces in American, but each ounce is larger.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

ike

ntion)

done.

paper, as it avoids dot deterioration causing errors. Naturally paper data is less common now, but still in widespread use. It's not a new system. We use the method on printed paper that is liable to degrade in use. It's muc h more of an issue in the developing world.

umerical value of the constant being expressed.

Hey! I stopped using uuF a long time ago and I'm dying as fast as is comfo rtable.

Rick C.

ave

es

tric a long time ago.

nd I thought half a pint, a cup, is not much beer or even orange juice (oft en served in tiny glasses in breakfast restaurants here). But a half pint in GB is 10 ounces which is nearly a 12 oz can of beer here. Now I have mu

ce cream in 20 oz pints!

You mean 4/5, right?

So you are telling me their half pint is really wimpy? Ok. thanks. Now I know.

Rick C.

Yes, well, the 5% is within experimental error. ;)

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

and I thought half a pint, a cup, is not much beer or even orange juice (o ften served in tiny glasses in breakfast restaurants here). But a half pin t in GB is 10 ounces which is nearly a 12 oz can of beer here. Now I have

ice cream in 20 oz pints!

Lol I guess it's time to experiment.

Rick C.

e:

l.

have

So

toes

metric a long time ago.

rom

and I thought half a pint, a cup, is not much beer or even orange juice (o ften served in tiny glasses in breakfast restaurants here). But a half pin t in GB is 10 ounces which is nearly a 12 oz can of beer here. Now I have

ice cream in 20 oz pints!

And the experimental errors get larger if you drink more of either kind of pint, though US beer also tends to short change you on ethyl alcohol conten t as well.

e:

ote:

ial.

rd have

. So

tatoes

t metric a long time ago.

ld

From

ts and I thought half a pint, a cup, is not much beer or even orange juice (often served in tiny glasses in breakfast restaurants here). But a half p int in GB is 10 ounces which is nearly a 12 oz can of beer here. Now I hav

ir ice cream in 20 oz pints!

an

f pint, though US beer also tends to short change you on ethyl alcohol cont ent as well.

Oh? What's the content of UK beers? Or are you suggesting they make it up with other types of alcohol?

I've always thought it odd that people can be so particular about the taste of the beer, wine or distilled beverage they imbibe, but if it is tainted with something like methanol it can't be tasted.

Rick C.

snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

Or simply look at the ml declarations.

Vishay Y1625601R000B0W.

I bet you love inductor markings (4.7uH => "4R7").

But will cost 4x more.

I just ran across a 12uH inductor today that was marked "120" and the one in the next bin was 12.5uH and marked "125". These were not 1% inductors. Amazingly, the 6.8uH part in the same series was marked "6R8".

It's useful to limit the number of digits printed by encoding the engineering notation multiplier where the decimal point would be.

Some, not all, of our surface-mount resistors are marked, according to various schemes. Small (like 0805 and 0603) inductors and capacitors are never marked.

I've always wondered why small caps are not marked.

Do you actually *TRY* to be wrong, AlwaysWrong? You really are a moron.

Anybody silly enough to hire krw may well have hired other people with similar kind of intellectual disability.

It's good to give these people work, but you do need to be selective about the kind of work you give them.

John Larkin wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

Because they are too small, and QA labor is not cheap.

...and as far as debugging goes, it is better to simply replace with the known value and test for operational changes. That way one needs not worry about heat damage on a removed component. Parts of that nature are cheap and it is not really a diagnostic cheat. It is more a diganostic proof.