A very newbish question about non-plarized caps

This is the place for any magazine-related discussions that don't fit in any of the column discussion boards below.
Opencan
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 1:01 am
Location: Israel
Contact:

A very newbish question about non-plarized caps

Post by Opencan » Fri Sep 16, 2005 6:16 am

I've read an article about how to find the value of a capasitor, read it twice and anderstood everything, but where the value is written.<p>I have a little yellow caps with written letters on it and for example, one of them have on it 332 C1K on one side and 007 AFT on the other side. which number is the value of the capasitor?<p>I'm sorry for the bad quility :\ but here is the picture of it.
http://members.lycos.co.uk/driftingfuzz ... 417_01.jpg<p>
more over, i have a few parts i don't know what they are:
1. a black thing, size and wires like a resistor, one side with a gray stripe, and on it is written : PK MUR 115 0423 *
2. something looks like a diode that is orange and one side with a black stripe, and on it there is a H sign and 48 downward.<p>
Thanks alot, and i hope to do good in here :)

positronicle
Posts: 233
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 1:01 am
Contact:

Re: A very newbish question about non-plarized caps

Post by positronicle » Fri Sep 16, 2005 8:37 am

--Edited by Positronicle--

Newz2000
Posts: 507
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 1:01 am
Location: Des Moines, Iowa, USA
Contact:

Re: A very newbish question about non-plarized caps

Post by Newz2000 » Fri Sep 16, 2005 8:58 am

I've had the same problem identifying capacitors. I've got some that say
100v .0047 +/- 10
M.0047 ULR
MP 331M 100v
AIJ 101
472K (underlined)
.01M 25v
Z 683<p>Who knows what they mean? It seems like every non-electrolytic capacitor I have has a different notation. The good news is the electrolytics are very clear in their markings, provided the capacitor is big enough to read the markings. <p>My capacitor needs have been pretty minimal, so I usually build a timer circuit with a known value capacitor and then substitute the one with a questionable value in there. That will give me a hint as to wither the value is lower or higher than the known value.<p>I assume that AIJ 101 means 101 ?F so I use the above technique to find out if its uF, nF or mF.

User avatar
philba
Posts: 2050
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2004 1:01 am
Location: Seattle
Contact:

Re: A very newbish question about non-plarized caps

Post by philba » Fri Sep 16, 2005 9:30 am

Most DMMs these days will measure capacitance. even the dirt cheap ones. I got one for $10 from, iirc, harbor freight that did as well as my more expensive DMM. at least until my 8 year old got ahold of it...<p>By the way, I usually look for a 3 digit number. It takes the form ddm when dd are the first 2 digits and m is the power of 10 multiplier. value is expressed in pFs. so 332 is 33 x 10^2 A letter following the number is a tolerance code M - 20% K - 10%, J -5%, G - 2%, F - 1%.<p>so:
MP 331M 100v is 330 pf 20%
AIJ 101 is 100 pf 5%?
472K (underlined) is 4700 pf or 4.7 nf 10%
Z 683 is 6800 pf or 6.8 nf Z is a temp ceofficient, iirc<p>the numbers with a decimal point are usually expressed in microfarads. I got a batch of 100 nF ceramics - half were labeled .1 and half were 104. same manufacturer - go figure.<p>Of course with smd chip caps, you get nothing! then you really do need a DMM with a cap setting...<p>The thing with an H on it could well be an inductor.<p>007 may be a date code. (august 2000)<p>[ September 16, 2005: Message edited by: philba ]</p>

User avatar
Chris Smith
Posts: 4325
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2001 1:01 am
Location: Bieber Ca.

Re: A very newbish question about non-plarized caps

Post by Chris Smith » Fri Sep 16, 2005 9:32 am

I gave up and bought a cap meter, It paid off in spades. <p>There is a chart with all the numbers in it but caps can easily be plus 50% / minus 25% of the value written so I prefer to know the actual value. <p>MY cap meter has been amortized over the last 20 years at less than $3 per year, a great investment.

Gorgon
Posts: 325
Joined: Wed May 04, 2005 1:01 am
Location: Norway
Contact:

Re: A very newbish question about non-plarized caps

Post by Gorgon » Fri Sep 16, 2005 3:32 pm

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Opencan:
<p>1. a black thing, size and wires like a resistor, one side with a gray stripe, and on it is written : PK MUR 115 0423 *
<hr></blockquote><p>Hi Opencan;
I think this fits your description. http://pdf.alldatasheet.co.kr/datasheet ... UR115.html <p>
Hi Philba,
The Z 683? I would think this to be 68000pF, 68nF? Or did I miss something here. :( <p>Beside that, this was a very good sequence of info. Thanks.<p>TOK ;)
Gorgon the Caretaker - Character in a childrens TV-show from 1968. ;)

ecerfoglio
Posts: 108
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 1:01 am
Location: Buenos Aires Argentina
Contact:

Re: A very newbish question about non-plarized caps

Post by ecerfoglio » Fri Sep 16, 2005 4:32 pm

There was a very good thread earlier this year on this forum about capacitors markings, including an exelent post by Dean Huster.<p>You can find it Here<p>regards<p>[ September 16, 2005: Message edited by: ecerfoglio ]</p>
E. Cerfoglio
Buenos Aires
Argentina

Robert Reed
Posts: 2276
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2004 1:01 am
Location: ASHTABULA,OHIO
Contact:

Re: A very newbish question about non-plarized caps

Post by Robert Reed » Fri Sep 16, 2005 5:03 pm

Philba<p>I believe "Z" in your last example refers to a very sloppy manufactured tolerance of minus 20% to plus 80%, if memory serves me right. Good for bypass and non critical coupling only.
Aside fom that-very good post.<p>[ September 16, 2005: Message edited by: ROBERT REED ]<p>[ September 17, 2005: Message edited by: ROBERT REED ]</p>

User avatar
philba
Posts: 2050
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2004 1:01 am
Location: Seattle
Contact:

Re: A very newbish question about non-plarized caps

Post by philba » Fri Sep 16, 2005 10:08 pm

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Gorgon:
<p>Hi Opencan;
I think this fits your description. http://pdf.alldatasheet.co.kr/datasheet ... UR115.html <p>
Hi Philba,
The Z 683? I would think this to be 68000pF, 68nF? Or did I miss something here. :)

terri
Posts: 404
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 1:01 am
Location: colorado
Contact:

Re: A very newbish question about non-plarized caps

Post by terri » Sat Sep 17, 2005 3:17 am

I DID NOT CAPTURE ANY ILLUSTRATIONS, BUT THIS IS FROM THE MASTER:<p>Dean Huster
Charter Member
Member # 12<p> posted February 22, 2005 04:38 PM Well, at the risk of overloading the forum, I'll post this answer. Granted, it's an overkill for the question, but this question arises so often that maybe it would be nice to have a spot to which we can all refer. This was originally in WordPerfect format, so some stuff may have dropped out. I'll try to check it over and fix the obvious, but you know I'll miss some stuff. Here 'tis:<p>CAPACITOR NOMENCLATURE<p>The questions of reading capacitor values, tolerances and their units of measure come up often on various Internet forums and have hit the old "Q & A" column that I wrote for Poptronics magazine (formerly Electronics Now and Popular Electronics magazines) during its last two years of existence. Here's an attempt at a global treatise on the subject.<p>
The Farad, Microfarad and Picofarad<p>Capacitors have always had farad as the unit of measure, abbreviated "F". Since this is a very large unit of measure for most practical capacitors or for most uses of capacitance, you'll find that a millionth of a farad or a million-millionth of a farad are the more common units found on capacitors. Yes, these days we can find capacitors with ratings in the tens and hundreds of farads, but those are usually reserved for extremely high-current, low-voltage switching supplies or for a more frivolous use as energy-storage tanks for use with high-power automotive audio power amplifiers. This treatise is for "normal" capacitors.<p>In scientific notation, we would write 1 millionth of a farad as 1 x 10-6 farad. In electronics, since we deal with so many component values and circuit values on even the smallest schematic or product, the metric prefix form is used for an electronic shorthand to keep the scribbling to a minimum. That prefix form uses letter symbols to take the place of the scientific notation – or more accurately, the engineering notation – that would otherwise accompany a unit of measure. The metric prefix form replaces the engineering notation[Note 1] that would otherwise be used in front of the unit of measure. That list follows.<p>Metric Prefix Symbol Power of 10 (multiplier)<p>giga G x 10E9
[Note 2]
mega M x 10E6
kilo K x 10E3
(none) -- x 10E0 (same as 1 or
unity)
milli m x 10E-3
micro µ x 10E-6
nano n x 10E-9
pico p x 10E-12<p>This list does extend farther in either direction, but those larger and smaller multipliers are not as commonly used in electronics. But using this list, you'll find that the common capacitor multipliers in the United States will be µ (micro) and p (pico). A capacitor with a value of 3.3 µF is the same as a capacitor with a value of 3.3 x 10E-6 farads or 0.0000033 farads. "µ", by the way, is the lower-case Greek letter "mu", properly written as our Roman lower case "u" with a leading descender much as a "y" has a trailing descender.<p>
Antique Capacitors and Schematic Diagrams<p>Prior to the 1960s, capacitors were called "condensers". Same part, same function, different name. You'll still hear the old name used by auto mechanics when they speak of the condenser in the ignition system on an older vehicle.<p>That earlier list of prefixes, although valid in the heyday of the vacuum tube, was used even less extensively back then. Mega (M) was the largest prefix commonly used and micro (µ) was the smallest. To achieve larger or smaller multipliers, the prefixes were doubled up just like multiplying two numbers together. So, a small capacitor value might be 47µµF ("forty-seven micromicro farads") which was saying 47 x 10E-6 x 10E-6, which is the same as 47 x 12E-12, or 47pF. So, anytime you see "µµ", just think "p" in your head.[Note 3] You'll also hear some old timers use the rather ridiculous term mickey-mikes instead of saying micromicrofarads. Makes me glad that we went to using pico.<p>To make it even worse, the symbol for micro,µ, was not used often before 1970 except for expensive physics and engineering texts. It was not a common character to find in a print shop and impossible to find on a typewriter, unless you had the special "symbol" typeball for the IBM Selectric. So, the lower case "u" was usually used in its place. That means that on schematics of the 1950s, a capacitor that was listed as 68uF is the same as one today listed as 68µF. In addition, the components themselves rarely had even the "u" listed. The actual part could have any one of the following printed on it: 68 mF 68 MF 68 mfd 68 MFD<p>It was always understood that "mF", "MF", "mfd" or "MFD" ALWAYS meant microfarad. Microfarad or micromicrofarad were the only units used for capacitors back then, so no one would ever even consider that "mfd" might mean "millifarad" or that "MFD" might mean "megafarad"! Even today, you'll still see "MFD" on capacitors, especially on motor start or motor run capacitors.<p>In addition, antique capacitors did not hold to today's standard value system. More on that later.<p>The Europeans<p>Even while we had nanoseconds and millihenries and other such measurements in the United States, capacitor values were only given in microfarads and picofarads (micromicrofarads) and that holds true even today. I have yet to ever find anyone or any source that can give the reason for that. I'm afraid that "because we've always done it that way" will be the only reason you'll ever hear. The practice thwarts the rules of engineering notation [Note 1], resulting in capacitor values written as 0.0068µF or 6800pF, both of which are the same value and either of which is correctly written in the engineering or metric prefix systems of notation. In addition, in this world of large computer-grade caps, you'll also find values of 180,000µF. Some companies preferred to use the latter of the two forms of notation just to keep the decimal point out of print so that there would be no confusion, preferring for instance, 6800pF over 0.0068µF<p>Meanwhile in Europe, and later Asia, the electronics folks there would have no problem at all referring to that same value of 0.0068µF or 6800pF as 6.8nF (6.8 nanofarads). So, on diagrams from the U.K., don't be surprised to see both millifarads and nanofarads used extensively. And that's OK. It makes a lot more sense and it's easier to write. The only problem is that we Yanks have to learn to convert or at least get used to working with milli and nano when dealing with capacitors. The 180,000µF cap mentioned earlier would be more-correctly rendered as 180mF by someone in Germany.<p>
Cryptic Capacitor Markings
(And here comes the specific answer to the forum question ...)<p>In the 1960s, capacitors were marked with their value. Plain and simple. But nevertheless, it was a poor system as decimal points and zeros often got lost. Paper capacitors often had a wax coating on the outside that obscured the markings and these same markings could be accidentally "edited" when scraping the wax away for a better view. Similarly, ceramic disc caps also often had a wax coating, possibly just from being next to waxy paper cap in a warm television set. A cap might be marked as ".0047MFD" or simply as ".22" and without that leading zero, there could be problems if the decimal point disappeared. You had to use a little common sense when reading these values. If the value was in decimal form (e.g., ".047"), you assumed the value to be in microfarads. If it was a whole number (e.g., "470"), you had to determine what type of capacitor you had. If it was an electrolytic type, you assumed the value to be in microfarads. If it was a small ceramic cap, it was in picofarads. You knew that a small ceramic or plastic cap couldn't possibly be as large as 470µF and that an electrolytic would nearly always have a value larger than 1µF.<p>During the 1970s, manufacturers began to mark the caps in a way similar to the way resistors were done, but without the color code. Rather than colors, they just used the actual printed digits, and the value was marked on the cap as two significant digits and a multiplier, the value being in picofarads. So, a cap marked "221" doesn't mean 221µF or 221pF. It means 22 + 1 zero or 220pF. "684" is decoded as 680,000 (68 + 4 zeros) pF or 0.68µF. Capacitor values smaller than 100pF might be printed as just two digits, such as "33" for 33pF or as two digits with a zero multiplier, as in 330 for 33pF.<p>This method of marking caps takes care of a lot of problems with disappearing decimal points and large numbers (e.g., .0047MFD) that would otherwise be difficult to print on small parts. But it did put in a bit of confusion when compared to the older way of marking. What did "100" mean? If it was an older cap, it meant 100pF. If it used the newer marking system, it meant 10pf (10 with no zeros added). So, you need to know which system is in use and that can be tricky. That's why it's nice to have a digital capacitance meter or a capacitance bridge at hand. You can get a "ballpark" check of the value to determine where to go from there.<p>Later, manufacturers took a hint from the Europeans and begin to mark their capacitors like the Brits marked them on schematics. This took care of ALL the problems of marking as well as problems associated with schematic value markings. In the Euro system, you revert to the engineering form, but replace the decimal point with the metric prefix multiplier. So, the oldest "4.7MFD" capacitor that was updated to "4.7µF" and then to "475" (picofarad) with the later system was now marked as "4µ7". Presto! The "µ" shows the location of the decimal point AND gives the metric prefix, all at the same time! This is really the best system in the world, both for marking the components themselves and for marking the values on schematics. If a decimal point disappears because of wear or poor printing, it can mess things up in the old system. An entire character would have to disappear in the newest system.<p>You will find plenty of folks, especially here in the U.S. who don't like the Euro way of marking. But these same folks don't like change. As a matter of fact, a lot of these old clowns will still use a "33 em-em-eff condenser to set the frequency of their 4.5 megacycle" oscillator. Just ignore them!<p>
Tolerances<p>Value tolerances used to be marked on the capacitor in percentage. An older cap might be marked as ".05 10%", meaning 0.05µF, ±10%. Newer caps use a letter for the tolerance, and that will seem confusing right at first. A common value might be ".1M" which means 0.1µF, ±20%. A little newer cap might be marked as "332K" and that drives some folks nuts. After all, "K" is a standard metric prefix multiplier and they automatically think they have a 332,000µF cap on their hands. In reality, they have a 3300pF (33 + 2 zeros, in pF) with a ±10% tolerance. The letters on these caps correspond to the following list. I've bold-faced the tolerances that you'll find to be the most common.<p>
B = ±0.1pF
C = ± 0.25pF
D = ±0.5pF
E = ±0.25%
F = ±1.0%
G = ±2%
H = ±2.5%
J = ±5%
K = ±10%
L = ±15%
M = ±20%
N = ±30%
P = -0, +100%
S = -20, +50%
W = -0, +200%
X = -20, +40%
Z = -20, +80%<p>You'll find that the "Z" tolerance of -20, +80% to be common for aluminum electrolytic caps and for disc ceramic caps that are used for what is known as "bulk capacitance" in applications such as power supply bypassing or filtering. These kinds of capacitors are used where it's OK for the value to be a lot larger than nominal, but they don't want it to go very far below that value.<p>If you do a lot of analog circuit design and building where you attempt to get frequency-dependent circuits to be as accurate as possible, you'll see or want to find Mylar caps with a "G" or "F" tolerances of ±2% or ±1% respectively. They're harder to find in catalogs, but if you watch the electronics surplus catalogs, you can find then on a sporadic basis. The tolerances of "B" through "E" are in pF vs. percent and are normally used on small caps of around 10pF or less.<p>Standard Values<p>When the numbers on a capacitor begin to rub off because of age, and you need to know the value, it may help to know that at least in more modern times, manufacturers have adhered to a set of standard values for capacitors. Typically, these will be the same list of standard values used for 20% tolerance fixed resistors, each decade having six possible values. This simply means that the significant digits of any capacitor value will be either 10, 15, 22, 33, 47 or 68. You'll find that 10, 22, 33 and 47 are the most-commonly used. This set of standard values applies whether the capacitor has a tolerance of 20%, 10% or 5%.<p>Why not have the full 24-per-decade range of values for the 5% capacitors just like we do for resistors? In most cases where tolerance might be a factor, a capacitor is used against a resistor for setting some type of timing or frequency of a circuit. There's no sense having all of those values for both components. So, since the capacitor is a lot more expensive to manufacture and is prone to larger tolerance variations, they limit the number of values to six per decade. A designer will then choose the value of capacitor most closely suited to the application and then "fine tune" the actual RC time constant by choosing one of the 24-per-decade resistor values. If the circuit is to be very accurate and stable, the designer will choose a 2% or 1% tolerance capacitor with a low temperature coefficient and then use a 1% metal film resistor for the resistive element where there are 96 possible values per decade.<p>All this is to say that if you're trying to decide if that capacitor you're trying to replace in a radio is marked "65" or "68" because the last digit is all scratched up, choose "68" since that's a standard value and is most likely the marked value. This is not to say that a capacitor will always hold to the standard value table. Older capacitors had values such as 0.03mF or 0.05mF. These were made before extensive standardization. And then there are specially made caps for the telephone industry. I've seen values such as 0.1746µF with a 2% tolerance. All those significant figures with a 2% tolerance is foolish since even the "4" can move up or down by almost three digits and still be within tolerance. And some manufacturers will feel the need to "fill in" the table by providing values that conform to the 12-per-decade table of 10% components, but that's OK. Just don't expect it for all capacitors.<p>
Temperature Coefficient<p>Capacitors, most notably ceramic capacitors, have temperature coefficients ("tempco" or TC). That is, their value will change with a change in temperature. Some "bulk" ceramic capacitors (those "M" tolerance things) can change over 10 or 20 percent with a 20 degree shift in temperature, so are unsuitable for use in circuits that are frequency-dependent, such as oscillators or filters. Capacitance changes are not necessarily linear or even directly proportional at all times for a particular type of capacitor.<p>You'll see markings on a cap such as "Z5U". That's a temperature coefficient. The "Z" part has nothing to do with the tolerance. I have no intention of going into tempcos here since it has nothing to do with reading the value. I just wanted you to be aware of them so that you don't confuse them with the tolerance.<p>
Wrapup<p>As usual, if you find any errors, however small, in this article or if you feel there's some information that needs to be added, please don't hesitate to contact me at [email protected] . If everyone wants to see tempco information here, then I'll go ahead and add it.<p>
Footnotes:<p>Note 1:
While scientific notation takes the form, n.nnnnn x 10Ep where you have only one digit to the left of the decimal point and an appropriate power of 10 so that the number in scientific notation will be numerically equal to the original number in decimal form, engineering notation takes one of the three following forms,<p>n.nnnnn x 10E3p
nn.nnnn x 10E3p
nnn.nnn x 10E3p<p>where there are either one, two or three digits to the left of the decimal point to achieve a power of ten that is an integer multiple of three, the final number being numerically equal to the original number in decimal form. So, the only powers of 10 allowed in engineering notation are powers such as 15, 12, 9, 6, 3, 0, -3, -6, -9, -12, -15, etc. Engineering notation is handy in that it directly translates into the metric prefix form, which also uses powers of ten that are integer multiples of three. Some models of Casio scientific calculators are capable of displaying their results in engineering notation while some even have the capability of displaying in metric prefix form.<p>The metric prefix form follows the engineering form exactly with two common exceptions. The "bel", the unit of measure for a ratio of sound or signal amplitude levels, it too large to be practical. One-tenth of a bel, or a decibel, is the normal unit used, abbreviated "dB", a term you have probably seen often. "Deci" is the same as "x 10E-1". Another exception is the centimeter, often used in the metric system where we would use inches in the English or SAE system. A centimeter is 1/100 of a meter, abbreviated "cm". "Centi" is the same as "x 10E-2".<p>Note 2:
"giga" is technically pronounced "jigga" beginning with a soft "g" as in the word "giant" with a hard "g" as in "gallup" the second time, and as is done by the character of Dr. Emmett Brown in the movie Back to the Future when he refers to "gigawatts" of power. However, you'll find that nearly everyone involved in electronics pronounces it beginning with a hard "g" as they would the "g" in the word "go".<p>Note 3:
Other units of measure had similar doubling up. For instance, fast oscilloscope risetimes were noted as 3mms or "3 millimicro seconds" which is the same as today's 3ns. At the other end of the spectrum, so to speak, microwave signal generators were marked as having frequencies of 1.5KMC or "1.5 kilomega cycles (per second)" which is 1.5GHz in today's vernacular. In addition, "cycles per second" as the unit of measure of frequency, which was usually shortened to the erroneous "cycles", was changed to Hertz, abbreviated Hz, in the 1960s.<p>The End<p>Geez. I shoulda been a teecher. Oh, yeah. I am.<p>
Dean<p>--------------------<p>Dean Huster
Contributing Editor emeritus, "Q & A", of the former "Poptronics" magazine (formerly "Popular Electronics" and "Electronics Now" magazines).<p>R.I.P.
terri wd0edw

Dean Huster
Posts: 1263
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2001 1:01 am
Location: Harviell, MO (Poplar Bluff area)
Contact:

Re: A very newbish question about non-plarized caps

Post by Dean Huster » Sat Sep 17, 2005 8:12 am

Geez .... gosh .....<p>The trouble with a lot of this is that my original material is generated on WordPerfect 8 with lots of embellishments and it never comes across onto a forum correctly, e.g., I have to redo all italics, bold face, etc. and paragraph indents go nuts. And worst of all, the super-and sub-scripts. If ever any of you would like a copy of the original, which is easier to read, just let me know. I can either mail one to you, scan it and send it as an attachment (at 26.4KB!!) or send you the WP8 file, which I understand Word will convert to its form.<p>And I make too many mistakes for "Master". Now, I have lost jobs for being "Overqualified" which translates to age discrimination ....<p>Dean
Dean Huster, Electronics Curmudgeon
Contributing Editor emeritus, "Q & A", of the former "Poptronics" magazine (formerly "Popular Electronics" and "Electronics Now" magazines).

R.I.P.

User avatar
philba
Posts: 2050
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2004 1:01 am
Location: Seattle
Contact:

Re: A very newbish question about non-plarized caps

Post by philba » Sat Sep 17, 2005 9:37 am

Dean, that is a really fine piece of work - why not format it up as a web page? I'm sure it would get a lot of hits and then your embelishments could come through.<p>Phil

terri
Posts: 404
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 1:01 am
Location: colorado
Contact:

Re: A very newbish question about non-plarized caps

Post by terri » Sat Sep 17, 2005 9:41 am

That was a direct copy and paste, with premeditated loss of a lot of formatting.<p>
That's, incidentally, why I try to avoid a lot of the whells and bistles of this or that word processor. I rarely use things like quote boxes and the like, and if you'll notice, I use dF and dC for degrees Fahrenheit and Centigrade. Fortunately this is no problem with Kelvin.<p>
I used to use *asterisks* for boldface, switched over to <carats> in pure text stuff. Nowadays I rarely use tags, but even if it isn't transliterated correctly, you can still see the coding in plain text.<p>
Anyhow, I thought this was a good place to re-insert your capacitor compendium, not necessarily for Opencan directly, but as a touchstone for the other respondents.<p>
I bow and scape repeatedly as I withdraw backwards from the Master's awesome presence. CUL<p>(LATER ADDENDUM --ecerfoglio: Sorry, I did not see your link to His Hustership's article before I posted this. I just posted it directly from my hard drive.)<p>[ September 17, 2005: Message edited by: terri ]</p>
terri wd0edw

Opencan
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 1:01 am
Location: Israel
Contact:

Re: A very newbish question about non-plarized caps

Post by Opencan » Sat Sep 17, 2005 12:17 pm

Thanks for you help :)
Read this messege of Dean before, great one with a lot of information *thumb up*<p>but yet I can't deside on some caps whats the value. for example, I got a cap saying A1J 330 and on the other side RAD 236.<p>This info about that "black diode like" thing doesn't tell me nothing, can't actually say what it does.. might be my lack of knowledge about it :\
And i don't remember asking for an inductor, so i think it something more like a diode or something like that. are there any orange transpert diodes?<p>
Thanks for all your help :D

Dean Huster
Posts: 1263
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2001 1:01 am
Location: Harviell, MO (Poplar Bluff area)
Contact:

Re: A very newbish question about non-plarized caps

Post by Dean Huster » Sat Sep 17, 2005 7:42 pm

That original write-up of mine has had some changes and additions since its original. The "330" is probably the value and would be 33pF. 330pF would be "331". The A1J could likely be the voltage rating, 1J being 63 volts. The "RAD 236" is likely manufacturer's numbers, such as catalog number or something. Here's some additional information that I added to the original write-up.<p>
Voltage Ratings<p>In addition to value and tolerance, a capacitor is often marked with a voltage rating. These may simply be noted as "50V" or "50VDC" or some such other voltage as appropriate. Voltage ratings are sometimes incorporated into a capacitor's "coded description". For instance, the value code "2A104K" has a "2A" prefix which translates to a voltage rating of 100V. The "104K" part, as you now know, translates to 100,000pF or 0.1µF or 100nF with a tolerance of 10%. <p>Voltage prefixes are made up of a digit and a letter. The letter is a code that indicates the significant digits of the voltage, much like the first two bands of a resistor color code indicate the significant digits, or mantissa, of the resistance value. The preceding digit is a multiplier, indicating the power of ten to which the mantissa is multiplied, much like the third multiplier band of the resistor color code.

The letter code is as follows:<p>A = 1.0
B = ___
C = 1.6
D = ___
E = 2.5
F = ___

G = ___
H = 5.0
I = ___
J = 6.3
K = ___
L = ___
M = ___
N = ___
O = ___
P = ___
Q = ___
R = ___<p>Therefore, 0J indicates a voltage rating of 6.3 volts (6.3 x 10^0)
1E is 25 volts (2.5 x 10^1)
2A is 100 volts (1.0 x 10^2)
3H is 5.0Kv or 5000 volts (5.0 x 10^3)<p>Note:
Finding this much of the information was a hit-and-miss sort of thing. I can't find any factual information in print or on the Internet. If any of you can fill in the blanks for the "standard" voltage values, please let me know. I'd love to have this information so that I can flesh out this section, but I need an authoritative source so that I'm not spreading lies, rumors and suppostion! Let me know via e-mail, please!<p>Dean
Dean Huster, Electronics Curmudgeon
Contributing Editor emeritus, "Q & A", of the former "Poptronics" magazine (formerly "Popular Electronics" and "Electronics Now" magazines).

R.I.P.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 19 guests