HT Smoothing Condensers

[Valvebloke]

Dual cans are also available from HiFi Collective - F&T http://www.hificollective.co.uk/catalog/...itors.html, Ruby http://www.hificollective.co.uk/catalog/...8_440.html and an LCR one http://www.hificollective.co.uk/catalog/...8_173.html.

VB

[Terry]

I find micromicrofarads clumsy and confusing - probably because it is using the same multiplier twice when there is a perfectly good one for the purpose - so, for me, it is the correct picofarad.

When I first started getting interested in electronics, only the microfarad and picofarad were in common use, resulting in a lot of unnecessary decimal points and zeros on circuit diagrams.

Also, there was no consistency - one would use 0.001µF and another 1,000ρF for the same value, and so on.

The introduction of the nanofarad made all the difference - 1nF being much simpler and less likely to be misread than the others, particularly 0.001µF, which might also appear as .001µF without the leading zero. If the decimal point didn't show up very well and a speck appeared in the wrong place, the second one was particularly prone to misinterpretation.

As these multipliers existed long before electronics, I don't know why they were not used from the start. Seeing 500µµF on a pre-war circuit has always struck me as weird.

The introduction in the 60s of the practice of putting the multiplier in place of the decimal point, whilst looking a bit odd at first, is an excellent method of preventing decimal point errors and I quickly grew to love it!

[ppppenguin]

Pico and nano are relatively new prefixes. They were only officially endorsed as standard by the General Conference on Weights and Measures in 1960.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Co...d_Measures

As a result you often see millimicrofarads and micromicrofarads (mµF and µµF) on older circuit diagrams and components. Or confusing strings of zeros such as 0.0001uF which we'd now call 100pF.

While nano was officially a prefix from 1960 the electronics industry was slow to adopt it. By the late 1970s it was well established, not sure when it was first widely used.

Like Terry, I use the 4µ7, 2p2 style of notation for capacitor values and for exactly the same reasons. Despite wide use they are strictly unofficial.

And remember:
1e-9 goats = 1 nanogoat

If you think that's bad then:
1e12 bulls = 1 terabull

Boom tish!

[Valvebloke]

And one millihelen is the degree of feminine facial beauty required to launch just one ship.

VB

[Nowhere-Man]

I have a simple system. I call 0.5 500,000 picofarads. Then I go back to 0.05 and so on. I actually suffered from actual dyscalculia but worked to find my own alternatives. Dyscalculia dogged me for many years. Still I know the usual cap ratings so 0.005 or so is usual to encounter.
Does anyone have any thoughts on the EABC80 WF? I am getting only 60 odd volts max on it. The set I am working on will be pretty similar to Philips layout. I have been warned these receivers are not easy to work on. I checked the valve and Valve Museum states anode voltage should be high. This is a triple diode triode. Excuse the sudden change of topic but these days I force myself to do more hands-on work. Of course I will test the HT line with the schematic in case there is some fault. Anyone a fan of Philips or German design?

[Mike Watterson]

1mF on a cap can mean 1 milli (1980s Japanese caps) or 1 micro (old 1950s UK caps).

There are these

see http://www.theregister.co.uk/Design/page...erter.html

Not all conversions will work perfectly. This is because here at the Reg Standards Soviet, our priority has to be preserving the accuracy of our own units. Accordingly, all our conversion factors are Reg standards.

To maintain our own high standards, we've had to shave a teensy bit of accuracy off everyone else's. For instance: there are 8 furlongs to a mile, which means 25 miles should convert to 200 furlongs. But it actually converts to 199.something furlongs. As our technical wizard explains: "To turn a mile into anything else, it first needs to be converted into linguine".
Area (nanoWales - nW)
Force (Norris - No)
Length (linguine - lg)
Temperature (Hilton - Hn)
Volume (grapefruit - gf)
Weight - (Jub - Jb)
Velocity - (Percentage of maximum velocity of sheep in a vacuum)
Money - (Pogba - Pg)

I'd advise people not to discuss what a Jub is, as this is a family friendly forum.

[Nowhere-Man]

I use old books so micromicrofarads is what normally is used in them. I call them picofarads usually. I had to break it down to decimals and usually I will go down the line. If I have to use 120 picofarads, I may start from 120, 000 as 0.12 mF. Then just keep deducting. When nanofarads hit me, I got unsettled. They are used a lot in modern ratings so to give an example, I have:
100 nF at 275 and a 220 nK also at 275 volts. I find film caps the hardest and electrolytics more easy to get familiar with.

[Terry]

... If I have to use 120 picofarads, I may start from 120, 000 as 0.12 mF ...

This is getting ridiculous!

The abbreviation MFD (for MicroFaraD) was common on old diagrams and, especially, on components but mF is a millifarad - 1mF = 1,000µF - which is completely different to what you were trying to say!

Members of this forum encompass a vast skill range, from novice upwards, so it is very important that the (technical) language that you use here is comprehensible to all.

This is essentially what Trevor was saying to you in a previous post.

We have recently welcomed a native Spanish speaking member from Cuba to this forum who takes great care to post in intelligible and technically understandable English.

He is not the only non native English speaker who posts here and on other forums in a comprehensible manner.

With respect, is it not unreasonable to ask you to do the same?

[Mark Hennessy]

And with respect, is it not unreasonable to ask for a bit of tolerance here?

NM has mentioned that he has dyscalculia, and that might not be an easy thing for him to admit to in a public forum. Certainly, the folk I know with dyslexia prefer not to shout it from the rooftops.

Chaps, I accept that NM's posts can sometimes be frustrating. However, if you haven't the patience to address them in a positive manner, then please don't respond to them. After all, no one forces you to read them.

It's easy for us to forget how we acquired the knowledge we take for granted today. When I did A-level maths and physics, large parts of it were hard-won lessons - and that was with the help of good teachers and peers. Self-teaching from text books is not easy at the best of times!

[Terry]

Point taken, Mark.

Referring to other aspects of this thread, I'm surprised that he terms nano, etc, are so new. Various branches of science seem to always be dealing with such minuscule quantities of this, that and the other that I thought they would have come up with them a long time ago.

Can anybody come up with a derivation of the term 'condenser' as in the title of this thread? A capacitor doesn't condense anything, to my mind, so how did it originate -  and why?

Capacitor was another term that only came into use in the early 60s but rapidly took over. However, this acceptance didn't extend to the automotive industry. True, there was probably only one in a car - and that was almost certainly retrofitted but with the explosion in the use of car radios and transistor radios in cars, interference suppression became a must, with cut-lead suppressors on the plug leads and the all important dynamo suppressor.

Long after the term capacitor reigned (almost) supreme, the RS - it might still have been Radiospares in those days - catalogue contained one item which would have been found in any service department that sold parts to the public or fitted car radios, which was shown both in the catalogue and on the component packaging as an ' Interference Suppression Condenser'!