Please clarify European resistor value notation for me

Nope, I wouldn't presume to call myself that, despite my golden ears.

Really though, if you wanna clean up a signal, gigafarads are great. Check out this no-ripple supply:

. R1 . 1u0 . +10v >---\\/\\/\\----o-----> Vout . | . | . --- C1 . --- 10G . | . | . GND

(from an older, household model warp flux converter--pretty standard, really.)

It takes an hour or so to charge, but then you've got 28MWH to go! Note: please do not short C1's terminals.

;-)

James Arthur

Most of my clients still use 0.001uF, not 1nF. Probably because it's been the tradition.

So how can that translate megacycles into rental car rates ... ?

What would they considered a "small" finished piece? See anything that indicated the working tolerances?

Some manufacturers used nF back in the '60s, but dropped them by the '70s. Its simpler to look at a drawing with only two multipliers. You know that values over 1.0 are in pF if its in an RF circuit, and uF if its in a power supply.

"Nanofarads? We don't need no stinkin' Nanofarads!" ;-)

Not to the electrons.

On a sunny day (Thu, 07 Dec 2006 07:20:59 GMT) it happened "Michael A. Terrell" wrote in :

But those do not have to read the diagrams, 'our simulation', they enjoy doing the real thing in circuit. It is a miracle they figure out how to do all those twists and turns in our circuits anyways.

Late at night, by candle light, John Larkin penned this immortal opus:

Not if you're doing field repairs with crappy photocopies. BTDT.

- YD.

But I don't do that. And my company, like most companies these days, doesn't do field repairs and doesn't release schematics to the outside world. If you think it's broke, send it back to us and we'll hook it up to a rack full of automated test/cal gear.

In an emergency, we'll email a customer a PDF of whatever part of a schematic he may need, like an output driver that might be blown or some such. Past simple i/o zaps, lots of gear is just too complex to fix in the field.

John

Well, don't eat a Carl's Jr Burger while doing that ;-)

Not really. They just follow the road, unless you push them so hard that they jump ship.

On a sunny day (Thu, 07 Dec 2006 23:20:27 GMT) it happened "Michael A. Terrell" wrote in :

You mean they 'follow the road' and not ONE of them ever started speeding and violated Einstein's speed limit ;-)?

Well, none that we KNOW about.

Late at night, by candle light, John Larkin penned this immortal opus:

Today field techs are board and module replacers, nothing on them that can be repaired locally. You still have to know enough to figure which one's let the magic smoke out.

When reading or making a schematic I prefer the 1k2 notation, it's a lot easier to understand at a glance. Of course, a smudged numeral may throw you for a loop, but that's true for whatever notation you use.

- YD.

On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 07:48:27 -0300, YD Gave us:

Resistor values (at least E96) are such that if read backwards, no standard value is derived, so it can be fairly easy to know or extrapolate what the value has to be with only a few of the digits being shown.

Late at night, by candle light, JoeBloe penned this immortal opus:

OTOH I also find the xxe and xxxe notation quite understandable. Where x's stand for value and e for the zeroes. Like 224 being 220k. Kind of threw me the first couple of times I saw it but after having it figured it's a no-brainer. I've interpreted enough schems and value markings to be flexible about it. I did have to look up those dotted mica caps and carbon body resistors but it's been over 30 years since the last one.

- YD.

I think preferences are forced by an organization's purchased software being able to handle the notation for sequencing, sorting and data migration between SW packages.

Once some drongo makes a decision, all other subsequent decisions and actions have to fall in line, just to save labour.

This isn't appreciated by the writers of the SW packages, who may have little or no practical experience in the application,nor is it recognized as being a problem in subsequent revisions made by persons who need have no connection to the original SW.

The 'simplest' and likely the most common example, is Excel, which must be nursed simply to import tables of data. Don't get me started on integrated manufacturing packages.

RL

There is migration possible between SW packages? Wow. Never saw that work, at least not with CAD ;-)

It's the fault of the SW vendors. Especially in the world of CAD they don't talk with each other. EDIF or whatever that is called was a joke.

Agile works pretty well IMHO.

(1) The EDIF "standard" was created by a committee.

(2) Committees exist so that the major players can see what their competition is up to, so they can thwart it or copy it.

(3) If EDIF worked it'd be bad for (the CAD SW) business.

(4) So you have to pay thru the nose for a 3rd party to do conversions :-(

(5) Cadence, Mentor, et al, are your enemy ;-)

...Jim Thompson

My impressions is different: Committees exist so that everybody has an excuse to spend time at a ritzy hotel, wine and dine only the good stuff on the company nickel and enjoy a tax write-off for all of that.

I have turned my back on them a while ago :-)))