I've never been able to fathom why the capacitor industry is so alergic to the nano prefix so adopted this resistor-colour code like scheme, despite the fact its as easy to print a letter as a number, and despite nanoseconds presenting no difficulties to electronics manufacturers!So the strangeness of printing 0.001uF instead of 1nF, or 100,000pF instead of 100nF. For resistor colour codes there is the limitation of the number of separate easily-distinguishable colours - none left for prefixes. For printing text on a flat surface there is no such limitation and adopting a number-of-tens digit leads to much confusion (and here ambiguity - is 100 100 or 10? I've seen 1000 meaning 1000 but it could also validly mean 100...)Often wondered how a whole segment of industry can develop such an aversion. And its not just nano, its milli, people write 10,000uF instead of 10mF for no discernable reason (again this is never done for microseconds and milliseconds...) I feel there must be a historical reason for this.
Speaking of caps... Will 24pf ceramic caps work in place of the 22pf in the ATMega8 (or 168, 328) Arduino circuit with the 16 MHz crystal? No one carries them locally & I have the 24pf's on hand. How much difference will it make. I also have 18pf & 10pf caps. I had thought about putting two 10pf caps in series x2 for the crystal, but that just looks very crowded. I guess, simply put, is there a suitable capacitor alternative for the 22pf caps for the 16 MHz crystal?Thanks,AptPupil
Please enter a valid email to subscribe
We need to confirm your email address.
To complete the subscription, please click the link in the
email we just sent you.
Thank you for subscribing!
via Egeo 16