Maker Pro
Maker Pro

H&H AoE -- advice re: component value notation

D

Dan Mills

Jan 1, 1970
0
Jim Thompson wrote:

Why would you use 0u1? What's wrong with 100n? Do the Euro's use
0R1?

Yep 0.1ohms, fairly standard. A fairer comparison would be asking if
european practice was 0K1 = 100 ohms, which of course you never see.

Regards, Dan.
 
A

Al Borowski

Jan 1, 1970
0
I agree. I prefer the squiggle resistors with the Euro notation, and
definely use nF. 100n by a capacitor symbol is perfectly clear, as is
100nF.

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany


Seconded.

Al
 
W

Winfield Hill

Jan 1, 1970
0
We are redrafting the figures for the next edition of H&H AoE, and
we're thinking about changing the notation for component values (to
the European scheme) in some of them. For example, we would write 4k7
instead of 4.7k, for a resistor; or 100n instead of 0.1uF, for a
capacitor. We're planning on sticking with the US symbols, however,
eg a zigzag (not a box) for a resistor.

Advantages: less chance of error, avoids tiny decimal points (by
eliminating them altogether), familiarizes readers with both schemes.
Disadvantages: things like 100n look weird to us, we are used to 0.1
or 0.1uF, etc., and 0u1 looks ever weirder!

Questions: What do y'all think of this idea? If we do it, should we
just pick some subset of the figures to change, or maybe just a whole
chapter, or what?

PS: don't hold your breath, on the new editon!
 
J

Jim Thompson

Jan 1, 1970
0
We are redrafting the figures for the next edition of H&H AoE, and
we're thinking about changing the notation for component values (to
the European scheme) in some of them. For example, we would write 4k7
instead of 4.7k, for a resistor; or 100n instead of 0.1uF, for a
capacitor. We're planning on sticking with the US symbols, however,
eg a zigzag (not a box) for a resistor.

Advantages: less chance of error, avoids tiny decimal points (by
eliminating them altogether), familiarizes readers with both schemes.
Disadvantages: things like 100n look weird to us, we are used to 0.1
or 0.1uF, etc., and 0u1 looks ever weirder!

Questions: What do y'all think of this idea? If we do it, should we
just pick some subset of the figures to change, or maybe just a whole
chapter, or what?

PS: don't hold your breath, on the new editon!

Why would you use 0u1? What's wrong with 100n? Do the Euro's use
0R1?

...Jim Thompson
 
J

John Larkin

Jan 1, 1970
0
We are redrafting the figures for the next edition of H&H AoE, and
we're thinking about changing the notation for component values (to
the European scheme) in some of them. For example, we would write 4k7
instead of 4.7k, for a resistor; or 100n instead of 0.1uF, for a
capacitor. We're planning on sticking with the US symbols, however,
eg a zigzag (not a box) for a resistor.

Advantages: less chance of error, avoids tiny decimal points (by
eliminating them altogether), familiarizes readers with both schemes.
Disadvantages: things like 100n look weird to us, we are used to 0.1
or 0.1uF, etc., and 0u1 looks ever weirder!

Questions: What do y'all think of this idea? If we do it, should we
just pick some subset of the figures to change, or maybe just a whole
chapter, or what?

PS: don't hold your breath, on the new editon!


Please, please don't do it! Why should electrical engineering not use
proper scientific notation like all other engineering and scientific
disciplines do? Not even plumbers record measurements this way! Why
would we want to look like a bunch of uneducated freaks?

This is a silly european audio hobbyist thing. What's wrong with
decimal points? All the scientific journals seem to be able to print
them just fine. I don't see 22kg4 anywhere in The review of Scientific
Instruments. I work with scientists a lot, and they would think I'm
nuts if I had to explain this notation to them.

And besides, any time you see 4 7M it should be a clue to put on
your reading glasses.

But personally, I don't mind things like nanofarads; they're handy,
formally correct, and not hard to get used to. We use 2.7nF instead of
0.0027uF. But please, let's use proper scientific notation! If you
don't want to use the ohms or farads symbols, add a note somewhere
"all resistances in Ohms; all inductances in Farads" etc. That's
usually understood either way.

You might mention the notation somewhere, just to help people who come
across it reading Glass Audio or something.


John
 
T

Tom Del Rosso

Jan 1, 1970
0
In Winfield Hill typed:
We are redrafting the figures for the next edition of H&H AoE, and
we're thinking about changing the notation for component values (to
the European scheme) in some of them. For example, we would write 4k7
instead of 4.7k, for a resistor; or 100n instead of 0.1uF, for a
capacitor. We're planning on sticking with the US symbols, however,
eg a zigzag (not a box) for a resistor.

The box thing is ridiculous. Why not boxes for caps and transistors
too? Op amps could be shown as rectangular function blocks like most
other ICs.

I don't like the look of 4k7 but it's not so bad. I never have trouble
seeing the decimal points though, except when the print is so bad I
can't read anything.

Advantages: less chance of error, avoids tiny decimal points (by
eliminating them altogether), familiarizes readers with both schemes.
Disadvantages: things like 100n look weird to us, we are used to 0.1
or 0.1uF, etc., and 0u1 looks ever weirder!

A scaling factor without a unit certainly does look weird. Why not
100nF? I've seen that in popular literature for ages. Only resistors
can get away with having no unit, since a special exception was made for
the omega symbol a long time ago.
 
T

Tim Auton

Jan 1, 1970
0
We are redrafting the figures for the next edition of H&H AoE, and
we're thinking about changing the notation for component values (to
the European scheme) in some of them. For example, we would write 4k7
instead of 4.7k, for a resistor; or 100n instead of 0.1uF, for a
capacitor. We're planning on sticking with the US symbols, however,
eg a zigzag (not a box) for a resistor.

Advantages:

Fewer syllables: four-kay-seven vs four-point-seven-kay

I suppose it comes down to how many of your readers are outside the US
and how small the font needs to be (the european system is a winner
with really small type).


Tim
 
W

Winfield Hill

Jan 1, 1970
0
Tim Auton wrote...
I suppose it comes down to how many of your readers are outside
the US and how small the font needs to be (the european system
is a winner with really small type).

Our readership is about 50:50. Or publisher is based in England,
but has a huge U.S. presence, with massive offices in New York.

There's no font issue. It's a matter of usage and professionalism.

Thanks,
- Win

whill_at_picovolt-dot-com
 
G

Gareth

Jan 1, 1970
0
Winfield said:
We are redrafting the figures for the next edition of H&H AoE, and
we're thinking about changing the notation for component values (to
the European scheme) in some of them. For example, we would write 4k7
instead of 4.7k, for a resistor; or 100n instead of 0.1uF, for a
capacitor. We're planning on sticking with the US symbols, however,
eg a zigzag (not a box) for a resistor.

Advantages: less chance of error, avoids tiny decimal points (by
eliminating them altogether), familiarizes readers with both schemes.
Disadvantages: things like 100n look weird to us, we are used to 0.1
or 0.1uF, etc., and 0u1 looks ever weirder!

Questions: What do y'all think of this idea? If we do it, should we
just pick some subset of the figures to change, or maybe just a whole
chapter, or what?

I think you should certainly mention the 4k7 style notation as many of
your readers are likely to come across it sooner or later, but I don't
think it matters which notation you use as, in my opinion, both are
quite clear.

It should be obvious to anyone with even the most basic scientific
knowledge that 0.1uF = 100nF. I personally prefer to write 100nF as it
avoids the decimal point and the use of a Greek letter, but I find
either perfectly clear. However when you get to smaller values I think
nF is definitely preferable, e.g. in my opinion 1nF is strongly
preferable to 0.001uF. Surely the purpose of these prefixes is to avoid
too many zeros?

I think 0u1 looks strange, though if written next to a capacitor symbol
it would quite obvious what it meant. I find 4u7 for 4.7uF perfectly
acceptable though.

Gareth.

--
 
S

Spehro Pefhany

Jan 1, 1970
0
I think you should certainly mention the 4k7 style notation as many of
your readers are likely to come across it sooner or later, but I don't
think it matters which notation you use as, in my opinion, both are
quite clear.

It should be obvious to anyone with even the most basic scientific
knowledge that 0.1uF = 100nF. I personally prefer to write 100nF as it
avoids the decimal point and the use of a Greek letter, but I find
either perfectly clear. However when you get to smaller values I think
nF is definitely preferable, e.g. in my opinion 1nF is strongly
preferable to 0.001uF. Surely the purpose of these prefixes is to avoid
too many zeros?

I think 0u1 looks strange, though if written next to a capacitor symbol
it would quite obvious what it meant. I find 4u7 for 4.7uF perfectly
acceptable though.
Gareth.

I agree. I prefer the squiggle resistors with the Euro notation, and
definely use nF. 100n by a capacitor symbol is perfectly clear, as is
100nF.

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
 
F

Frank Bemelman

Jan 1, 1970
0
Winfield Hill said:
We are redrafting the figures for the next edition of H&H AoE, and
we're thinking about changing the notation for component values (to
the European scheme) in some of them. For example, we would write 4k7
instead of 4.7k, for a resistor; or 100n instead of 0.1uF, for a
capacitor. We're planning on sticking with the US symbols, however,
eg a zigzag (not a box) for a resistor.

Advantages: less chance of error, avoids tiny decimal points (by
eliminating them altogether), familiarizes readers with both schemes.
Disadvantages: things like 100n look weird to us, we are used to 0.1
or 0.1uF, etc., and 0u1 looks ever weirder!

Questions: What do y'all think of this idea? If we do it, should we
just pick some subset of the figures to change, or maybe just a whole
chapter, or what?

PS: don't hold your breath, on the new editon!

0u1 looks silly here too. 100n(F) is better. I like the 4k7 notation.
Boxes for resistors - I don't mind, the zigsags are all right. In Europe
we also were a bit used to a horizontal line for ground and power. I prefer
the american style of triangles, up for +V and down for -V or ground.

This answer from someone who knows.

;-)
 
F

Frank Bemelman

Jan 1, 1970
0
Spehro Pefhany > said:
I agree. I prefer the squiggle resistors with the Euro notation, and
definely use nF. 100n by a capacitor symbol is perfectly clear, as is
100nF.

I could not agree more.
 
R

red rover

Jan 1, 1970
0
I think I am in agreement with Gareth, Frank and
Spehro in general. No problems with 4k7 (also 1R1 = 1.1 Ohms)
and much prefer nF. What is the history with that? Why
were nF ignored in the past?

I prefer the zig-zag resistor.

Frank's last comment threw me.
In Europe we also were a bit used to a horizontal line
for ground and power. I prefer the american style of triangles,
up for +V and down for -V or ground.

I currently work for large multi-national. In all my years of working
with different CAD systems and libraries I only recently
encountered an upside down triangle and that was from one
of our European units. I figured it was a European thing. I have
only seen triangles with the point down and only representing
ground, never V- or V+.

The horizontal line I've seen used frequently. Frank, did you get
get American/European backwards in your statement?

Steve
 
G

Gary Richardson

Jan 1, 1970
0
John Larkin said:
Please, please don't do it! Why should electrical engineering not use
proper scientific notation like all other engineering and scientific
disciplines do? Not even plumbers record measurements this way! Why
would we want to look like a bunch of uneducated freaks?

This is a silly european audio hobbyist thing. What's wrong with
decimal points? All the scientific journals seem to be able to print
them just fine. I don't see 22kg4 anywhere in The review of Scientific
Instruments. I work with scientists a lot, and they would think I'm
nuts if I had to explain this notation to them.

And besides, any time you see 4 7M it should be a clue to put on
your reading glasses.

But personally, I don't mind things like nanofarads; they're handy,
formally correct, and not hard to get used to. We use 2.7nF instead of
0.0027uF. But please, let's use proper scientific notation! If you
don't want to use the ohms or farads symbols, add a note somewhere
"all resistances in Ohms; all inductances in Farads" etc. That's
usually understood either way.

You might mention the notation somewhere, just to help people who come
across it reading Glass Audio or something.


John
Well said!
 
R

Roy McCammon

Jan 1, 1970
0
Winfield said:
We are redrafting the figures for the next edition of H&H AoE, and
we're thinking about changing the notation for component values (to
the European scheme) in some of them. For example, we would write 4k7
instead of 4.7k, for a resistor; or 100n instead of 0.1uF, for a
capacitor. We're planning on sticking with the US symbols, however,
eg a zigzag (not a box) for a resistor.

Advantages: less chance of error, avoids tiny decimal points (by
eliminating them altogether), familiarizes readers with both schemes.
Disadvantages: things like 100n look weird to us, we are used to 0.1
or 0.1uF, etc., and 0u1 looks ever weirder!

Questions: What do y'all think of this idea? If we do it, should we
just pick some subset of the figures to change, or maybe just a whole
chapter, or what?

PS: don't hold your breath, on the new editon!

Well, extra decimal points used to be a problem when we used a blue
print process to duplicate drawings. It would pick up specs that
were about the size of a decimal point. So 47K could become 4.7K

But the problem doesn't really exist anymore.

But, 4k7 is elegant, has fewer characters, and is unambiguous.

Heck, do both.
 
K

Kevin McMurtrie

Jan 1, 1970
0
We are redrafting the figures for the next edition of H&H AoE, and
we're thinking about changing the notation for component values (to
the European scheme) in some of them. For example, we would write 4k7
instead of 4.7k, for a resistor; or 100n instead of 0.1uF, for a
capacitor. We're planning on sticking with the US symbols, however,
eg a zigzag (not a box) for a resistor.

Advantages: less chance of error, avoids tiny decimal points (by
eliminating them altogether), familiarizes readers with both schemes.
Disadvantages: things like 100n look weird to us, we are used to 0.1
or 0.1uF, etc., and 0u1 looks ever weirder!

Questions: What do y'all think of this idea? If we do it, should we
just pick some subset of the figures to change, or maybe just a whole
chapter, or what?

PS: don't hold your breath, on the new editon!

I think the 4k7 and 0R1 notation would add ugliness to a book that will
be read by many people starting out in electronics. It's one more bit
of unique non-intuitive jargon to learn before getting started on the
basics. 4.7K and 0.1 are much easier to understand. Eliminating the
'.' was a hack to prevent printing errors. It's obsolete and I think
it's time for the practice to go away. (Avoiding 4-way junctions bugs
me too - it makes traces harder to follow.)

As for caps, I don't think it matters where you switch between micro and
nano. I've seen schematics where a section of electronics will stick
with a single notation for a wide range of values, presumably for fast
visual comparisons. Just don't do 0u1!!!!

I'm glad you're going with the zig-zag resistors. It much better
represents what a resistor does than a rectangle.
 
J

John Woodgate

Jan 1, 1970
0
I read in sci.electronics.design that Winfield Hill <[email protected]>
Questions: What do y'all think of this idea? If we do it, should we
just pick some subset of the figures to change, or maybe just a whole
chapter, or what?

I'll accept the wiggly resistor if you accept the nanofarad. I agree
that eliminating the decimal point is a good thing for avoiding
misreading, and you also please the half of the electronics world that
uses the comma instead of the point.
 
J

John Woodgate

Jan 1, 1970
0
I read in sci.electronics.design that John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandSNIP
techTHISnologyPLEASE.com> wrote (in <d5tv2016kgj6gqiopmonu2ihgqb9sjnks2@
4ax.com>) about 'H&H AoE -- advice re: component value notation', on
Sun, 15 Feb 2004:
This is a silly european audio hobbyist thing.

It certainly isn't. I can't cite the official backing for it at present,
but it exists.
What's wrong with decimal
points?

They don't reproduce well. Have you EVER seen a baby decimal point?
 
J

John Woodgate

Jan 1, 1970
0
I read in sci.electronics.design that Tom Del Rosso
s.ops.worldnet.att.net>) about 'H&H AoE -- advice re: component value
notation', on Sun, 15 Feb 2004:
The box thing is ridiculous.

No, it's not ridiculous. It was MUCH easier to draw when circuit
diagrams were hand-drawn.

Please (everyone, not just Tom) at least try to stop slagging off
everything that wasn't invented in USA.
 

Similar threads

M
Replies
6
Views
1K
josephkk
J
R
Replies
23
Views
2K
Jim Thompson
J
G
Replies
6
Views
1K
Jim Thompson
J
J
Replies
3
Views
839
Joel Kolstad
J
Top