Maker Pro
Maker Pro

Re: 100nF vs. 0.1uF

P

Phil Allison

Jan 1, 1970
0
"Joel Koltner"
Just curious... how many people out there use 100nF on schematics rather
than 0.1uF (and 200nF vs 0.2uF, etc.)? As far as I can tell, 0.1uF is
popular with older individuals whereas -- at least where I went to
school -- "engineering units" were that the base value was always >=1 and
hence you'd use 100nF.


** How are the capacitors you use nowadays marked ??

I reckon that should be your guide.



...... Phil
 
P

Phil Allison

Jan 1, 1970
0
"Joel Koltner"
"Phil Allison"
Well, the vast bulk of caps I use today are surface mount without
markings.


** All the through hole ones have markings.

Different manufacturers' datasheets use different nomenclatures.


** I suggested you look at how caps sold nowadays were marked

- you pedantic fuckhead.


....... Phil
 
P

Phil Allison

Jan 1, 1970
0
"Joel Koltner
"Phil Allison"

I guarantee you that well over 90% of the tens of thousands of capacitors
sitting within a few hundred feet of me here have no markings whatsoever
on them.

** Go drop dead - you ASININE fuckhead.

Even if they were marked, the question was about how capacitors are shown
on schematics -- how capacitors are physical marked may play into this,
but it doesn't have to.


** And what did the post from me that you just snipped out of sight say ??

You ASININE fuckhead.




........ Phil
 
A

AnimalMagic

Jan 1, 1970
0
Well, the vast bulk of caps I use today are surface mount without markings.


Different manufacturers' datasheets use different nomenclatures.

---Joel
Nanofarad markings are still used, and CAD packages should ALL still
recognize the moniker.

There are not many makers using it, but it is not an invalid
designator.
 
A

AnimalMagic

Jan 1, 1970
0
I guarantee you that well over 90% of the tens of thousands of capacitors
sitting within a few hundred feet of me here have no markings whatsoever on
them.

Yes, and none of them are thru hole, dipshit. Also, if you have some
that are 0603 or larger, they can be marked, you just have to know that
they are, because it isn't readily visible.
Even if they were marked, the question was about how capacitors are shown on
schematics

However the draftsman marks them.
-- how capacitors are physical marked may play into this, but it
doesn't have to. (This gets into the classic debate over whether schematic
symbols for connectors should be made to look like the physical part of not --
you can certainly make decent arguments on both sides.)

Schematic components NEVER "need" to be shaped like the part they
represent.
 
S

Spehro Pefhany

Jan 1, 1970
0
All the disk ceramics and all the polyester (mylar) in my inventory are
marked "104". That's NOT the way I'd mark them on the schematic ... my
choice is picofarads through 999, nanofarads through 999, and microfarads
above. Haven't gotten around to millifarads yet, although by logic I should
be using mF for 1000 uF and above.

Yes, I started out my first ten years in the biz using mickey-mikes for
puffs.

Jim

At one place I saw an entire batch of boards get shipped (in product)
that were stuffed with 47 ohm resistor networks (marked 470) rather
than the correct 470 ohm resistor packs (marked 471). The previous
supplier marked them "470 ohms".
Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
 
A

Archimedes' Lever

Jan 1, 1970
0
I glanced at two reels... one doesn't have the capacitance value called out
(just has the manufacturer's part number that has the value embedded within
it), another says ".100uF", which I'd suggest is poor because it's only a
+/-10% capacitor so they have too many significant digits and should start
with a leading zero anyway ("0.1uF").

So as I say, different manufacturers do it differently...
What size are the parts?

Once one gets up above 0603, one may find markings on the caps. Said
markings are very faint, and appear on the base substrate, between the
terminations. Typically a two figure designation, such as "A3".
 
A

AnimalMagic

Jan 1, 1970
0
You're quite savvy to have figured that out.


Um, that's what the discussion is about -- most people on this board are their
own draftsman for the sake of entering schematics.


Agreed, but some people like drawing them that way anyway.
I have a new nickname for you.

You are "Loopy Node". Or, for the Adam Sandler crowd...

Loopy Node Boy.
 
A

AnimalMagic

Jan 1, 1970
0
All the disk ceramics and all the polyester (mylar) in my inventory are
marked "104". That's NOT the way I'd mark them on the schematic ... my
choice is picofarads through 999, nanofarads through 999, and microfarads
above. Haven't gotten around to millifarads yet, although by logic I should
be using mF for 1000 uF and above.

Yes, I started out my first ten years in the biz using mickey-mikes for
puffs.

Jim

On the schematic, "104" is completely wrong.

Using this "significant digit with multiplier" should never be
practiced. The idiots that write a note in their title block or so that
says "unless otherwise marked, all values are...yada yada yada" is
fucking retarded.

The declaration should be the significant digits only, and then the best
designator that conveys the cap's size to the reader.
 
A

AnimalMagic

Jan 1, 1970
0
At one place I saw an entire batch of boards get shipped (in product)
that were stuffed with 47 ohm resistor networks (marked 470) rather
than the correct 470 ohm resistor packs (marked 471). The previous
supplier marked them "470 ohms".
Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany


The previous supplier used an idiotic manufacturer. That goes beyond
"cheap Chinese".
 
E

Eeyore

Jan 1, 1970
0
Spehro said:
At one place I saw an entire batch of boards get shipped (in product)
that were stuffed with 47 ohm resistor networks (marked 470) rather
than the correct 470 ohm resistor packs (marked 471). The previous
supplier marked them "470 ohms".

Don't you just love it ?

When we had a problem batch of 0.1uF / 100n caps that tended to catch fire, the
floor techs always called them '104s'.

I tend to prefer 100n btw. IEC style ennumeration. Like 2R2 or 0R1 and so on.

Graham
 
M

MooseFET

Jan 1, 1970
0
At one place I saw an entire batch of boards get shipped (in product)
that were stuffed with 47 ohm resistor networks (marked 470) rather
than the correct 470 ohm resistor packs (marked 471). The previous
supplier marked them "470 ohms".


I've seen many mistakes like that but not any I can think of that made
it out the door. You have to be very careful in how you make your
BOMs.


One TUBE of o-ring lube is very different from one TUB of o-ring
lube. We ended up with enough for about a million years of
production.

"Brass washer" can be understood by some to mean "brass colored
washer"
 
J

JosephKK

Jan 1, 1970
0
You're quite savvy to have figured that out.


Um, that's what the discussion is about -- most people on this board are their
own draftsman for the sake of entering schematics.


Agreed, but some people like drawing them that way anyway.
That can be worked until pin counts get up over say 100 or so. I
would like to see someone do that with a 700+ pin device.
 
J

JosephKK

Jan 1, 1970
0
Yep, figuring out how to draw stuff like big FPGAs is always... interesting.

Some schematic capture/PCB layout packages let you use one schematic symbol
pin to represent multiple PCB footprint pads, so a part with 50 common
grounds, 30 Vcc's, and 20 VccIO's (or whatever) can be cleanly represented
with just three symbol pins for those 100 pads.

Oh boy. It must be real fun making PCB layout and Schematic capture
play nice with each other for parts like that.
 
J

JosephKK

Jan 1, 1970
0
I've seen many mistakes like that but not any I can think of that made
it out the door. You have to be very careful in how you make your
BOMs.


One TUBE of o-ring lube is very different from one TUB of o-ring
lube. We ended up with enough for about a million years of
production.

"Brass washer" can be understood by some to mean "brass colored
washer"

And some folks will take it as a military kiss up.
 
J

JosephKK

Jan 1, 1970
0
Why? The netlist would just show all those pads connected to a single
net (GND or Vdd or whatever) and the layout program would take it from
there. The only hassle might come in if you wanted to separate them
for some perverse reason.




Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

Oh foo. I embarrassed myself again.
 
S

StickThatInYourPipeAndSmokeIt

Jan 1, 1970
0
"Brass washer" can be understood by some to mean "brass colored
washer"


Only in your retarded little part of the world, dumbfuck.
 
A

AnimalMagic

Jan 1, 1970
0
I think your main problem here is that most of us who have been engineering
for awhile figure that the various different ways of "doing things" generally
have various pros and cons that aren't always obvious at first glance and
therefore find discussing them useful. You seem to be one of those people who
has already decided for yourself that there's one and only one "best" way to
solve any given problem, and anyone who does it differently must just be
wrong.

You're an idiot... no "seem to be" about it.
Maybe you should resurrect the old discussion of whether or not 555 timers
should ever be used in contemporary circuit design?

I've integrated logic circuitry onto a board with diodes. Big deal
what one decides to use if it works.
 

neon

Oct 21, 2006
1,325
Joined
Oct 21, 2006
Messages
1,325
Phil Allison said:
"Joel Koltner"

> Just curious... how many people out there use 100nF on schematics rather
> than 0.1uF (and 200nF vs 0.2uF, etc.)? As far as I can tell, 0.1uF is
> popular with older individuals whereas -- at least where I went to
> school -- "engineering units" were that the base value was always >=1 and
> hence you'd use 100nF.



** How are the capacitors you use nowadays marked ??

I reckon that should be your guide.



...... Phil
200nfd on a busy schematic becomes not the obvious choice as opposed to .2mfd most small caps have the multiplier as a means to recognize the value like 104.
 
Top