Where to find nanofarad capacitors in the US?

K

Kasterborus

Guest
I'm following a schematic that calls for 330nF, 120nF and 100nF caps.
I can't find a source for nanofarad caps in the US. Are they common?
Even converting to pF/uF I still can't find a match.

Does anyone know where I can get them from?
 
On Nov 16, 8:14 am, Kasterborus <kasterbo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I'm following a schematic that calls for 330nF, 120nF and 100nF caps.
I can't find a source for nanofarad caps in the US. Are they common?
Even converting to pF/uF I still can't find a match.

Does anyone know where I can get them from?
You should be able to get the 330 and the 100 from any of the major
distributors. Not sure about the 120 though. Try places like

www.mouser.com or www.alliedelec.com
 
Oops, you're right - I goofed in my conversion. They're more common
than I thought...
 
"Kasterborus" <kasterborus@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2868f1f1-77a9-4dd0-9934-18d39d9fc561@d61g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
I'm following a schematic that calls for 330nF, 120nF and 100nF caps.
I can't find a source for nanofarad caps in the US. Are they common?
Even converting to pF/uF I still can't find a match.
0.33 uF and 0.1 uF are common here. 0.12 uF may be less so, but would 0.1
uF substitute for it?
 
Kasterborus wrote:

I'm following a schematic that calls for 330nF, 120nF and 100nF caps.
I can't find a source for nanofarad caps in the US. Are they common?
Even converting to pF/uF I still can't find a match.

Does anyone know where I can get them from?
330nF is just another way of saying 0.33uF and so on.

Its use is encouraged in order to avoid using the decimal point in component
values. The idea is that photocopying cannot reliably reproduce a decimal point
and also a speck of dust might look like a decimal point so it's best to avoid
them.

Even so, you should be able to find nF values very easily.

Graham

p.s. values like 0.0047uF always drove me nuts. I never could be sure what size
it was meant to be (it's 4.7nF or preferably 4n7), humans do not instinctively
respond well to number values several zeroes beyond the decimal point. Research
shows IIRC that we intuitively 'grasp' number values in the 1-1000 range best.
 
On Nov 16, 10:49 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Kasterborus wrote:
I'm following a schematic that calls for 330nF, 120nF and 100nF caps.
I can't find a source for nanofarad caps in the US. Are they common?
Even converting to pF/uF I still can't find a match.

Does anyone know where I can get them from?

330nF is just another way of saying 0.33uF and so on.

Its use is encouraged in order to avoid using the decimal point in component
values. The idea is that photocopying cannot reliably reproduce a decimal point
and also a speck of dust might look like a decimal point so it's best to avoid
them.

Even so, you should be able to find nF values very easily.

Graham

p.s. values like 0.0047uF always drove me nuts. I never could be sure what size
it was meant to be (it's 4.7nF or preferably 4n7), humans do not instinctively
respond well to number values several zeroes beyond the decimal point. Research
shows IIRC that we intuitively 'grasp' number values in the 1-1000 range best.
What drives me nuts is catalogs that express 0.1 uF as 100000 pF, with
no commas for the thousands separator, and in small print. Counting
teeny tiny zeroes all next to each other is a pain! There seems to be
a real aversion, on the part of some people, to using nF.

Mark
 
redbelly wrote:

On Nov 16, 10:49 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com
wrote:
Kasterborus wrote:
I'm following a schematic that calls for 330nF, 120nF and 100nF caps.
I can't find a source for nanofarad caps in the US. Are they common?
Even converting to pF/uF I still can't find a match.

Does anyone know where I can get them from?

330nF is just another way of saying 0.33uF and so on.

Its use is encouraged in order to avoid using the decimal point in component
values. The idea is that photocopying cannot reliably reproduce a decimal point
and also a speck of dust might look like a decimal point so it's best to avoid
them.

Even so, you should be able to find nF values very easily.

Graham

p.s. values like 0.0047uF always drove me nuts. I never could be sure what size
it was meant to be (it's 4.7nF or preferably 4n7), humans do not instinctively
respond well to number values several zeroes beyond the decimal point. Research
shows IIRC that we intuitively 'grasp' number values in the 1-1000 range best.

What drives me nuts is catalogs that express 0.1 uF as 100000 pF,
It's aeons since I saw that kind of thing. It's equally daft.


with
no commas for the thousands separator, and in small print. Counting
teeny tiny zeroes all next to each other is a pain! There seems to be
a real aversion, on the part of some people, to using nF.
It's purely an American thing.

Compare with Farnell for example.

Graham
 
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 03:49:35 +0000, Eeyore wrote:
....
p.s. values like 0.0047uF always drove me nuts.
Easy. It's 4700 pF. ;-)

Cheers!
Rich
 
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 09:55:27 -0800 (PST), redbelly
<redbelly98@yahoo.com> wrote:

What drives me nuts is catalogs that express 0.1 uF as 100000 pF, with
no commas for the thousands separator, and in small print. Counting
teeny tiny zeroes all next to each other is a pain! There seems to be
a real aversion, on the part of some people, to using nF.

Mark
In that case, I'd look at the manufacturer's part number, or other
order number - there's probably a "104" in it somewhere for an 0.1uF.


--
Peter Bennett, VE7CEI
peterbb4 (at) interchange.ubc.ca
new newsgroup users info : http://vancouver-webpages.com/nnq
GPS and NMEA info: http://vancouver-webpages.com/peter
Vancouver Power Squadron: http://vancouver.powersquadron.ca
 
Rich Grise wrote:

On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 03:49:35 +0000, Eeyore wrote:
...
p.s. values like 0.0047uF always drove me nuts.

Easy. It's 4700 pF. ;-)
That is at least slightly more comprehensible but it get crazy when you get to
47000pF.

Graham
 
On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 02:26:12 +0000, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

Rich Grise wrote:

On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 03:49:35 +0000, Eeyore wrote:
...
p.s. values like 0.0047uF always drove me nuts.

Easy. It's 4700 pF. ;-)

That is at least slightly more comprehensible but it get crazy when you get to
47000pF.
---
I can't imagine why. What do you think '473' written on the body of
a capacitor means?


--
JF
 

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top