snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz a écrit :
It's not manufacturer code but standard EIA marking for 0603. Google for EIA-96 and you'll find lots of tables.
snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz a écrit :
It's not manufacturer code but standard EIA marking for 0603. Google for EIA-96 and you'll find lots of tables.
Some 0603s are marked with the value, sorta, though.
That's the nice things about standards; there're so many to choose from.
manufacturer's
not
The difference is 1% vs 5% tolerance (E96 vs E24/E12 series). The former need 4 significant digits while the latter needs 3, so there's no printing/reading benefit at 'obfuscating' the E24/E12 0603 resistors.
manufacturer's
not
We don't use 5% resistors, so something's still not right with the above explanation.
4.7K
manufacturer's
not
Well, I don't know then... Are those E12 series 1% by any chance?
IME 100 nF will give you contact erosion, especially without a series resistance.
I have wondered about that myself in the past and used 100R in series with the switch to limit the peak current from the shunt capacitor. I don't know whether it made any difference though. The best solution probably also depends on the operating voltage and frequency of switch operation as well as the switch type.
John
I don't put caps across switch, may put RC after switch if I'm multiplexing lots into a window comparator for EOL detection. Depends. But 100n across a switch just seems wrong to me. Need to limit peak current, no sparks in there to mess up the contacts.
Grant.
Not necessarily sparks as you mean them, but certainly localized heating and microwelding which converts to erosion.
Picky? Anyway, you get what I mean :) Not stress the switch contacts, to get maximal life out of them.
Grant.
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required