In a recent thread, component tolerances were discussed and there was a brief
reference to E6 and E12 series.

The concept of acceptable tolerances seems to be alien to many people,
especially those who dabble with electronics for the first time.

The availability of accurate digital meters compounds these problems. It is
quite common to see posts in some forums on the lines of "I replaced R72
(100k) because it was reading high at 106.8k".

Of course, if the resistor had a tolerance of ±10%, it would have been well
within spec and it is quite possible that the replacement was even further
from the nominal value but still within spec.

In the days when everybody used analogue meters they would probably have
noted that the pointer indicated 100k, near enough, and moved on ...

Then there are these mysterious E numbers ...

In the early days of electronics - or should I say the wireless? -
manufacturing tolerances were so high that a simple 1,2,5,10... sequence was
about the best that was reasonably possible. In fact, although improvements
in resistor technology moved on quite rapidly, there is still a lot of
vintage equipment about with capacitors that follow the 1,2,5 sequence* ...

When it became viable to consistently produce resistors with a ±20%
tolerance, a logarithmic or exponential series of values appeared. This was
the E6 series, with values of 10, 15, 22, 33, 47 & 68 ohms and multiples of
10 thereafter.

In time, as tolerances improved still further, the E12 series (±10%) and the
E24 series (±5%) appeared.

Anybody who thinks that the ranges of resistor values follow some weird
random sequence might like to look at this drawing I produced which shows how
neatly the values in the various ranges neatly dovetail together:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/24301298/Res_Tolerance.png

* Some people seem to have great difficulty in grasping the concept that the
0.2µF and 0.5µF capacitors that they wish to replace can no longer be found
and that all they are are offered are 0.22µF and 0.47µF components ...

--

Terry

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

Terry Casey wrote:
Anybody who thinks that the ranges of resistor values follow some weird
random sequence might like to look at this drawing I produced which shows
how neatly the values in the various ranges neatly dovetail together:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/24301298/Res_Tolerance.png

That's a very nice plot!

The other thing I find myself doing is thinking 'it's a 430 ohm resistor so
I have to replace it with one' rather than wondering 'so what is it actually
doing?'. If it sets the current for an LED, say, it doesn't really matter
if it's 390 or 470. If it's in some precision measuring circuit then maybe
it does.

On the other hand, if a resistor is marked 10.0 K (eg 4 value bands or 4
printed numbers - 1002) then that means it is a high precision resistor and
you might want to pay more attention.

Theo

On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 23:23:36 -0000, Terry Casey
wrote:

In a recent thread, component tolerances were discussed and there was a brief
reference to E6 and E12 series.

The concept of acceptable tolerances seems to be alien to many people,
especially those who dabble with electronics for the first time.

The availability of accurate digital meters compounds these problems. It is
quite common to see posts in some forums on the lines of "I replaced R72
(100k) because it was reading high at 106.8k".

Of course, if the resistor had a tolerance of ±10%, it would have been well
within spec and it is quite possible that the replacement was even further
from the nominal value but still within spec.

In the days when everybody used analogue meters they would probably have
noted that the pointer indicated 100k, near enough, and moved on ...

Then there are these mysterious E numbers ...

In the early days of electronics - or should I say the wireless? -
manufacturing tolerances were so high that a simple 1,2,5,10... sequence was
about the best that was reasonably possible. In fact, although improvements
in resistor technology moved on quite rapidly, there is still a lot of
vintage equipment about with capacitors that follow the 1,2,5 sequence* ...

When it became viable to consistently produce resistors with a ±20%
tolerance, a logarithmic or exponential series of values appeared. This was
the E6 series, with values of 10, 15, 22, 33, 47 & 68 ohms and multiples of
10 thereafter.

In time, as tolerances improved still further, the E12 series (±10%) and the
E24 series (±5%) appeared.

Anybody who thinks that the ranges of resistor values follow some weird
random sequence might like to look at this drawing I produced which shows how
neatly the values in the various ranges neatly dovetail together:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/24301298/Res_Tolerance.png

* Some people seem to have great difficulty in grasping the concept that the
0.2µF and 0.5µF capacitors that they wish to replace can no longer be found
and that all they are are offered are 0.22µF and 0.47µF components ...

Bring back body-tip-spot resistors. That'll confuse 'em



--

Graham.

%Profound_observation%

On 19 Nov 2014 00:20:20 +0000 (GMT), Theo Markettos
wrote:

Terry Casey wrote:
Anybody who thinks that the ranges of resistor values follow some weird
random sequence might like to look at this drawing I produced which shows
how neatly the values in the various ranges neatly dovetail together:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/24301298/Res_Tolerance.png

That's a very nice plot!

The other thing I find myself doing is thinking 'it's a 430 ohm resistor so
I have to replace it with one' rather than wondering 'so what is it actually
doing?'. If it sets the current for an LED, say, it doesn't really matter
if it's 390 or 470. If it's in some precision measuring circuit then maybe
it does.

On the other hand, if a resistor is marked 10.0 K (eg 4 value bands or 4
printed numbers - 1002) then that means it is a high precision resistor and
you might want to pay more attention.

Theo

Seeing two resistors in parallel or in series is a good clue that the
designer was aiming for an exact value.


--

Graham.

%Profound_observation%

On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 00:51:36 +0000, Graham. wrote:

On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 23:23:36 -0000, Terry Casey
wrote:

In a recent thread, component tolerances were discussed and there was a
brief reference to E6 and E12 series.

The concept of acceptable tolerances seems to be alien to many people,
especially those who dabble with electronics for the first time.

The availability of accurate digital meters compounds these problems. It
is quite common to see posts in some forums on the lines of "I replaced
R72 (100k) because it was reading high at 106.8k".

Of course, if the resistor had a tolerance of ±10%, it would have been
well within spec and it is quite possible that the replacement was even
further from the nominal value but still within spec.

In the days when everybody used analogue meters they would probably have
noted that the pointer indicated 100k, near enough, and moved on ...

Then there are these mysterious E numbers ...

In the early days of electronics - or should I say the wireless? -
manufacturing tolerances were so high that a simple 1,2,5,10... sequence
was about the best that was reasonably possible. In fact, although
improvements in resistor technology moved on quite rapidly, there is
still a lot of vintage equipment about with capacitors that follow the
1,2,5 sequence* ...

When it became viable to consistently produce resistors with a ±20%
tolerance, a logarithmic or exponential series of values appeared. This
was the E6 series, with values of 10, 15, 22, 33, 47 & 68 ohms and
multiples of 10 thereafter.

In time, as tolerances improved still further, the E12 series (±10%) and
the E24 series (±5%) appeared.

Anybody who thinks that the ranges of resistor values follow some weird
random sequence might like to look at this drawing I produced which
shows how neatly the values in the various ranges neatly dovetail
together:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/24301298/Res_Tolerance.png

* Some people seem to have great difficulty in grasping the concept that
the 0.2µF and 0.5µF capacitors that they wish to replace can no longer
be found and that all they are are offered are 0.22µF and 0.47µF
components ...

Bring back body-tip-spot resistors. That'll confuse 'em

I'd actually forgotten about them!



--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £30a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 00:51:36 +0000, Graham. wrote:

On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 23:23:36 -0000, Terry Casey
wrote:

In a recent thread, component tolerances were discussed and there was a
brief reference to E6 and E12 series.

The concept of acceptable tolerances seems to be alien to many people,
especially those who dabble with electronics for the first time.

The availability of accurate digital meters compounds these problems. It
is quite common to see posts in some forums on the lines of "I replaced
R72 (100k) because it was reading high at 106.8k".

Of course, if the resistor had a tolerance of ±10%, it would have been
well within spec and it is quite possible that the replacement was even
further from the nominal value but still within spec.

In the days when everybody used analogue meters they would probably have
noted that the pointer indicated 100k, near enough, and moved on ...

Then there are these mysterious E numbers ...

In the early days of electronics - or should I say the wireless? -
manufacturing tolerances were so high that a simple 1,2,5,10... sequence
was about the best that was reasonably possible. In fact, although
improvements in resistor technology moved on quite rapidly, there is
still a lot of vintage equipment about with capacitors that follow the
1,2,5 sequence* ...

When it became viable to consistently produce resistors with a ±20%
tolerance, a logarithmic or exponential series of values appeared. This
was the E6 series, with values of 10, 15, 22, 33, 47 & 68 ohms and
multiples of 10 thereafter.

In time, as tolerances improved still further, the E12 series (±10%) and
the E24 series (±5%) appeared.

Anybody who thinks that the ranges of resistor values follow some weird
random sequence might like to look at this drawing I produced which
shows how neatly the values in the various ranges neatly dovetail
together:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/24301298/Res_Tolerance.png

* Some people seem to have great difficulty in grasping the concept that
the 0.2µF and 0.5µF capacitors that they wish to replace can no longer
be found and that all they are are offered are 0.22µF and 0.47µF
components ...

Bring back body-tip-spot resistors. That'll confuse 'em

I'd actually forgotten about them!

We called 'em dog bones.

Terry Casey wrote:

Anybody who thinks that the ranges of resistor values follow some weird
random sequence might like to look at this drawing I produced which shows how
neatly the values in the various ranges neatly dovetail together:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/24301298/Res_Tolerance.png

Which has the useful property that every resistor produced can
have a value assigned in the system. Getting the right quantity
of each is more of a problem. ;-)

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK


Plant amazing Acers.

"Graham." wrote in message
...

Bring back body-tip-spot resistors. That'll confuse 'em




I remember filing nicks in those to adjust to a precise value - a bit like
laser trimming a film resistor but on the kitchen table

Andrew

And of course to some converting from the old notation to the more recent
nF randge is alien too, They obviously did not understand the decimal system
very well, though I do have to say that changing things like this seemed to
be totally pointless... pun intended.


There is also a tendency not to look what might have caused a problem. IE
they find a duff transistor, then put in a new one and it gets buggered as
well. In ogther words diagnostic tests should be done to see where issues
might be before sacrificing another transistor etc.
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"Terry Casey" wrote in message
...
In a recent thread, component tolerances were discussed and there was a
brief
reference to E6 and E12 series.

The concept of acceptable tolerances seems to be alien to many people,
especially those who dabble with electronics for the first time.

The availability of accurate digital meters compounds these problems. It
is
quite common to see posts in some forums on the lines of "I replaced R72
(100k) because it was reading high at 106.8k".

Of course, if the resistor had a tolerance of ±10%, it would have been
well
within spec and it is quite possible that the replacement was even further
from the nominal value but still within spec.

In the days when everybody used analogue meters they would probably have
noted that the pointer indicated 100k, near enough, and moved on ...

Then there are these mysterious E numbers ...

In the early days of electronics - or should I say the wireless? -
manufacturing tolerances were so high that a simple 1,2,5,10... sequence
was
about the best that was reasonably possible. In fact, although
improvements
in resistor technology moved on quite rapidly, there is still a lot of
vintage equipment about with capacitors that follow the 1,2,5 sequence*
...

When it became viable to consistently produce resistors with a ±20%
tolerance, a logarithmic or exponential series of values appeared. This
was
the E6 series, with values of 10, 15, 22, 33, 47 & 68 ohms and multiples
of
10 thereafter.

In time, as tolerances improved still further, the E12 series (±10%) and
the
E24 series (±5%) appeared.

Anybody who thinks that the ranges of resistor values follow some weird
random sequence might like to look at this drawing I produced which shows
how
neatly the values in the various ranges neatly dovetail together:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/24301298/Res_Tolerance.png

* Some people seem to have great difficulty in grasping the concept that
the
0.2µF and 0.5µF capacitors that they wish to replace can no longer be
found
and that all they are are offered are 0.22µF and 0.47µF components ...

--

Terry

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus
protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

On Tuesday, 18 November 2014 23:23:50 UTC, Terry Casey wrote:
In a recent thread, component tolerances were discussed and there was a brief
reference to E6 and E12 series.

The E series (not E numbers) have little to do with tolernaces the E series is teh number of differnt values per decade.


The concept of acceptable tolerances seems to be alien to many people,
especially those who dabble with electronics for the first time.

We have a lab about that.


The availability of accurate digital meters compounds these problems. It is
quite common to see posts in some forums on the lines of "I replaced R72
(100k) because it was reading high at 106.8k".

What's worse is when student comes to you asking for a 733.48K ;-)


Of course, if the resistor had a tolerance of ±10%,

I've found it difficult top buy such a resistor with such a low tolernace
most are 5% and 2% are quite cheap when brought in bulk 100+



In the days when everybody used analogue meters they would probably have
noted that the pointer indicated 100k, near enough, and moved on ...

Some would have, but in those days temperature drift could also a problem.


Then there are these mysterious E numbers ...

In the early days of electronics - or should I say the wireless? -
manufacturing tolerances were so high that a simple 1,2,5,10... sequence was
about the best that was reasonably possible. In fact, although improvements
in resistor technology moved on quite rapidly, there is still a lot of
vintage equipment about with capacitors that follow the 1,2,5 sequence* ....

When it became viable to consistently produce resistors with a ±20%
tolerance, a logarithmic or exponential series of values appeared. This was
the E6 series, with values of 10, 15, 22, 33, 47 & 68 ohms and multiples of
10 thereafter.

In time, as tolerances improved still further, the E12 series (±10%) and the
E24 series (±5%) appeared.

I was asked to buy a set of E192 a cople of months ago.

I do have a 50R 0.01% that cost 15 quid !
and I've brought some 97.6K at 1% for a lab.

Anybody who thinks that the ranges of resistor values follow some weird
random sequence might like to look at this drawing I produced which shows how
neatly the values in the various ranges neatly dovetail together:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/24301298/Res_Tolerance.png

* Some people seem to have great difficulty in grasping the concept that the
0.2µF and 0.5µF capacitors that they wish to replace can no longer be found
and that all they are are offered are 0.22µF and 0.47µF components ....


True another problem I'm finding is that when google tells a studetn they need a 0.01uF they tell me I haven't any in the lab, but there's a draw full of 10 nF caps.

In article , Theo Markettos
scribeth thus
Terry Casey wrote:
Anybody who thinks that the ranges of resistor values follow some weird
random sequence might like to look at this drawing I produced which shows
how neatly the values in the various ranges neatly dovetail together:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/24301298/Res_Tolerance.png

That's a very nice plot!

The other thing I find myself doing is thinking 'it's a 430 ohm resistor so
I have to replace it with one' rather than wondering 'so what is it actually
doing?'. If it sets the current for an LED, say, it doesn't really matter
if it's 390 or 470. If it's in some precision measuring circuit then maybe
it does.

On the other hand, if a resistor is marked 10.0 K (eg 4 value bands or 4
printed numbers - 1002) then that means it is a high precision resistor and
you might want to pay more attention.

Theo

I've been fixing an Orban broadcast processor and if they want a
particular ressy .. then they just get them made;!..


R128a,b Resistor Set, MF; 2.00K 28520-002 ORB 3
R136a,b Resistor Set, MF; 13.3K/10.2K 28522-003 ORB 3
R139a,b Resistor Set, MF; 4.64K/4.53K 28522-005 ORB 3
R146a,b Resistor Set, MF; 13.3K/10.2K 28522-003 ORB 3
R148a,b Resistor Set, MF; 4.53K/3.01K 28522-004 ORB 3


20130.162.01 RESISTOR, 1/8W, 1%, 1.62K R69 R70
20130.200.01 RESISTOR, 2.00K R124
20130.221.01 RESISTOR, 2.21K R19
20130.332.01 RESISTOR, 1% 3.32K R76 R140
20130.365.01 RESISTOR, 1/8W, 1%, 3.65K R90
20130.475.01 RESISTOR, 4.75K R31 R32 R33 R34
20130.562.01 RESISTOR, 1/8W, 1%, 5.62K R75
20131.140.01 RESISTOR, 14.0K R126 R87
20131.200.01 RESISTOR, 20.0K 1% R88
20131.301.01 RESISTOR, 30.1K R141
20131.499.01 RESISTOR, 1/8W, 1%, 49.9K R23
--
Tony Sayer

whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 18 November 2014 23:23:50 UTC, Terry Casey wrote:

The availability of accurate digital meters compounds these problems. It is
quite common to see posts in some forums on the lines of "I replaced R72
(100k) because it was reading high at 106.8k".

What's worse is when student comes to you asking for a 733.48K ;-)

I hope you start by taking an 80 ohm, 50 watt power resistor and telling
them to add some more resistors in series...

Of course, if the resistor had a tolerance of ±10%,

I've found it difficult top buy such a resistor with such a low tolernace
most are 5% and 2% are quite cheap when brought in bulk 100+

Depends. I've been buying carbon composition resistors recently - nice
performance ~1GHz but tolerance often 10-20%. Metal film resistors are
typically etched in a serpentine pattern that has too much inductance to be
good at high frequencies, likewise wirewound resistors.

I was asked to buy a set of E192 a cople of months ago.

I do have a 50R 0.01% that cost 15 quid !

At that sort of level it's temperature stability that matters as well as
value, I suspect (0.01% = 100ppm).

True another problem I'm finding is that when google tells a studetn they
need a 0.01uF they tell me I haven't any in the lab, but there's a draw
full of 10 nF caps.

On a certain kind of schematic, sometimes uF can imply electrolytic and nF
ceramic or polyester - though 0.01uF would be an implausibly small
electrolytic.

Perhaps you can insist the student relabels the cap by writing '0.01uF'
on it before putting it in the circuit? ;-)

Theo

On a certain kind of schematic, sometimes uF can imply electrolytic and nF
ceramic or polyester - though 0.01uF would be an implausibly small
electrolytic.


http://uk.rs-online.com/web/p/alumin...itors/7148752/

http://uk.rs-online.com/web/p/alumin...itors/7395226/


Hummm....


Perhaps you can insist the student relabels the cap by writing '0.01uF'
on it before putting it in the circuit? ;-)

Theo

--
Tony Sayer

On Thursday, 20 November 2014 11:48:39 UTC, Theo Markettos wrote:
whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 18 November 2014 23:23:50 UTC, Terry Casey wrote:

The availability of accurate digital meters compounds these problems. It is
quite common to see posts in some forums on the lines of "I replaced R72
(100k) because it was reading high at 106.8k".

What's worse is when student comes to you asking for a 733.48K ;-)

I hope you start by taking an 80 ohm, 50 watt power resistor and telling
them to add some more resistors in series...

well I only supply 1/4W as standard from 10R to 10M I tell them to start with 10R and put them in series until you get the right value.
Or 2 1.5M in parellel might be good enough.
Sometimes I can get them to see the wood for the trees in under 10 mins,
while others I give up on and send them to their supervisors.


Of course, if the resistor had a tolerance of ±10%,

I've found it difficult top buy such a resistor with such a low tolernace
most are 5% and 2% are quite cheap when brought in bulk 100+

Depends. I've been buying carbon composition resistors recently - nice
performance ~1GHz but tolerance often 10-20%. Metal film resistors are
typically etched in a serpentine pattern that has too much inductance to be
good at high frequencies, likewise wirewound resistors.

Not really practical for what we're teaching. I could have brought some 10% 2w resistors for 88p each but then I'd have to explain why they are MORE expensive than the 5% or even 1% I keep.


I was asked to buy a set of E192 a cople of months ago.

I do have a 50R 0.01% that cost 15 quid !

At that sort of level it's temperature stability that matters as well as
value, I suspect (0.01% = 100ppm).

http://uk.rs-online.com/web/p/throug...2D393 8333226

think it's 3ppm

Perhaps you can insist the student relabels the cap by writing '0.01uF'
on it before putting it in the circuit? ;-)

no chance, I can't even get them to write it on their order forms.


Theo

On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 22:49:20 +0000, tony sayer
wrote:

In article , Theo Markettos
scribeth thus
Terry Casey wrote:
Anybody who thinks that the ranges of resistor values follow some weird
random sequence might like to look at this drawing I produced which shows
how neatly the values in the various ranges neatly dovetail together:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/24301298/Res_Tolerance.png

That's a very nice plot!

The other thing I find myself doing is thinking 'it's a 430 ohm resistor so
I have to replace it with one' rather than wondering 'so what is it actually
doing?'. If it sets the current for an LED, say, it doesn't really matter
if it's 390 or 470. If it's in some precision measuring circuit then maybe
it does.

On the other hand, if a resistor is marked 10.0 K (eg 4 value bands or 4
printed numbers - 1002) then that means it is a high precision resistor and
you might want to pay more attention.

Theo

I've been fixing an Orban broadcast processor and if they want a
particular ressy .. then they just get them made;!..


R128a,b Resistor Set, MF; 2.00K 28520-002 ORB 3
R136a,b Resistor Set, MF; 13.3K/10.2K 28522-003 ORB 3
R139a,b Resistor Set, MF; 4.64K/4.53K 28522-005 ORB 3
R146a,b Resistor Set, MF; 13.3K/10.2K 28522-003 ORB 3
R148a,b Resistor Set, MF; 4.53K/3.01K 28522-004 ORB 3


20130.162.01 RESISTOR, 1/8W, 1%, 1.62K R69 R70
20130.200.01 RESISTOR, 2.00K R124
20130.221.01 RESISTOR, 2.21K R19
20130.332.01 RESISTOR, 1% 3.32K R76 R140
20130.365.01 RESISTOR, 1/8W, 1%, 3.65K R90
20130.475.01 RESISTOR, 4.75K R31 R32 R33 R34
20130.562.01 RESISTOR, 1/8W, 1%, 5.62K R75
20131.140.01 RESISTOR, 14.0K R126 R87
20131.200.01 RESISTOR, 20.0K 1% R88
20131.301.01 RESISTOR, 30.1K R141
20131.499.01 RESISTOR, 1/8W, 1%, 49.9K R23

Well if you charge $$$ for your product, anything goes.

An Optimod is it?



--

Graham.

%Profound_observation%

Well if you charge $$$ for your product, anything goes.

Well yes, best in class equipment;!..

An Optimod is it?

8400




--
Tony Sayer

tony sayer wrote:

Well if you charge $$$ for your product, anything goes.

Well yes, best in class equipment;!..

Ah, I see. Buy cheapo 150 ohm resistor, measure, relabel as 147.85 ohms
ultra precision, sell for loadsamoney. Just don't ask about the
stability...

Theo

On Thursday, November 20, 2014 2:25:14 PM UTC, tony sayer wrote:
On a certain kind of schematic, sometimes uF can imply electrolytic and nF
ceramic or polyester - though 0.01uF would be an implausibly small
electrolytic.

http://uk.rs-online.com/web/p/alumin...itors/7148752/

with 26A ripple current no less


NT

In article , says...

I've been fixing an Orban broadcast processor and if they want a
particular ressy .. then they just get them made;!..


R128a,b Resistor Set, MF; 2.00K 28520-002 ORB 3
R136a,b Resistor Set, MF; 13.3K/10.2K 28522-003 ORB 3
R139a,b Resistor Set, MF; 4.64K/4.53K 28522-005 ORB 3
R146a,b Resistor Set, MF; 13.3K/10.2K 28522-003 ORB 3
R148a,b Resistor Set, MF; 4.53K/3.01K 28522-004 ORB 3


20130.162.01 RESISTOR, 1/8W, 1%, 1.62K R69 R70
20130.200.01 RESISTOR, 2.00K R124
20130.221.01 RESISTOR, 2.21K R19
20130.332.01 RESISTOR, 1% 3.32K R76 R140
20130.365.01 RESISTOR, 1/8W, 1%, 3.65K R90
20130.475.01 RESISTOR, 4.75K R31 R32 R33 R34
20130.562.01 RESISTOR, 1/8W, 1%, 5.62K R75
20131.140.01 RESISTOR, 14.0K R126 R87
20131.200.01 RESISTOR, 20.0K 1% R88
20131.301.01 RESISTOR, 30.1K R141
20131.499.01 RESISTOR, 1/8W, 1%, 49.9K R23

Oh no they didn't! And no, the pantomime season hasn't started early!

All of those values are standard values in the E96 series of resistor values!

E96 ( 1%): 100 121 147 178 215 261 316 383 464 562 681 825
102 124 150 182 221 267 324 392 475 576 698 845
105 127 154 187 226 274 332 402 487 590 715 866
107 130 158 191 232 280 340 412 499 604 732 887
110 133 162 196 237 287 348 422 511 619 750 909
113 137 165 200 243 294 357 432 523 634 768 931
115 140 169 205 249 301 365 442 536 649 787 953
118 143 174 210 255 309 374 453 549 665 806 976

Two significant digits (plus the multiplier) are sufficient for all the lower
orders (E6 to E24) but from the E48 series upwards, three significant digits
(plus the multiplier) are needed ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preferred_number#E_series


--

Terry

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

In article , Theo Markettos
scribeth thus
tony sayer wrote:

Well if you charge $$$ for your product, anything goes.

Well yes, best in class equipment;!..

Ah, I see. Buy cheapo 150 ohm resistor, measure, relabel as 147.85 ohms
ultra precision, sell for loadsamoney. Just don't ask about the
stability...

Theo


Err No Theo, they don't do that, there're very fussy that lot;!.

--
Tony Sayer

20131.499.01 RESISTOR, 1/8W, 1%, 49.9K R23

Oh no they didn't! And no, the pantomime season hasn't started early!


Wouldn't surprise me if they didn't...

All of those values are standard values in the E96 series of resistor values!


Anyone here -ever- used them?...

E96 ( 1%): 100 121 147 178 215 261 316 383 464 562 681 825
102 124 150 182 221 267 324 392 475 576 698 845
105 127 154 187 226 274 332 402 487 590 715 866
107 130 158 191 232 280 340 412 499 604 732 887
110 133 162 196 237 287 348 422 511 619 750 909
113 137 165 200 243 294 357 432 523 634 768 931
115 140 169 205 249 301 365 442 536 649 787 953
118 143 174 210 255 309 374 453 549 665 806 976

Two significant digits (plus the multiplier) are sufficient for all the lower
orders (E6 to E24) but from the E48 series upwards, three significant digits
(plus the multiplier) are needed ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preferred_number#E_series



--
Tony Sayer

On Thu, 20 Nov 2014 13:15:32 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Thursday, November 20, 2014 2:25:14 PM UTC, tony sayer wrote:
On a certain kind of schematic, sometimes uF can imply electrolytic and nF
ceramic or polyester - though 0.01uF would be an implausibly small
electrolytic.

http://uk.rs-online.com/web/p/alumin...itors/7148752/

with 26A ripple current no less


The smiley rather suggests you're taking the **** out of RS for
misquoting a 4700µF 450v large can electrolytic HT smoothing capacitor
as being a 12pF electrolytic capacitor.

Mind you, you seemed to have missed the typo on the price which seems
to be inflated by an order of magnitude of error (at least when the
cap in question is a low grade 2000 hour lifetime rated 85 deg C
specimen). The pricing is all rather too Russ Andrewesque for my
taste. :-)
--
J B Good

On Friday, November 21, 2014 2:56:21 AM UTC, Johny B Good wrote:
On Thu, 20 Nov 2014 13:15:32 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Thursday, November 20, 2014 2:25:14 PM UTC, tony sayer wrote:

On a certain kind of schematic, sometimes uF can imply electrolytic and nF
ceramic or polyester - though 0.01uF would be an implausibly small
electrolytic.

http://uk.rs-online.com/web/p/alumin...itors/7148752/

with 26A ripple current no less


The smiley rather suggests you're taking the **** out of RS for
misquoting a 4700湩 450v large can electrolytic HT smoothing capacitor
as being a 12pF electrolytic capacitor.

or out of someone for thinking its 12pF

Mind you, you seemed to have missed the typo on the price which seems
to be inflated by an order of magnitude of error (at least when the
cap in question is a low grade 2000 hour lifetime rated 85 deg C
specimen). The pricing is all rather too Russ Andrewesque for my
taste. :-)

pretty normal for RS.


NT

On Thursday, 20 November 2014 20:22:40 UTC, Theo Markettos wrote:
tony sayer wrote:

Well if you charge $$$ for your product, anything goes.

Well yes, best in class equipment;!..

Ah, I see. Buy cheapo 150 ohm resistor, measure, relabel as 147.85 ohms
ultra precision, sell for loadsamoney. Just don't ask about the
stability...

Theo

They aren't the sort of things I'd buy.
How many 150Rs would you need to buy before finding one of 147.85 ohms ?