Actions
Forum Thread Details
  • State Verified Answer
  • Replies 12 replies
  • Answers 1 answer
  • Subscribers 254 subscribers
  • Views 354 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Related
See a helpful answer?

Be sure to click 'more' and select 'suggest as answer'!

If you're the thread creator, be sure to click 'more' then 'Verify as Answer'!

How does 569 relate to 5.6pF on an MLCC through hole capacitor, I understand 101 or 104 but why 569?

davebullockmbe

Hi I just received what purport to be some through hole 5.6pF MLCC's marked 569, how does this relate to the value?

I understand MLCC's marked 101, 102, 473 as the last number is the multiplier (how many zeroes) but xx9?

Whilst an internet can decipher the value it offers no explanation of the value numbering origin for such low value MLCC's

Please explain.

Thanks

Dave

Parents
  • 0

    I do not know standards, but according to https://kiloohm.info/3-digit-capacitor/478 numbers 8 and 9 and dedicated to special cases:

    XY9 is X.Y pF

    XY8 is 0.XY pF

    I have Kemet capactor kit and it match this coding scheme.

  • 0 in reply to misaz

    The OP's part is a Kemet part, so it's no surprise if the capacitor kit matches the same scheme as the OP's part.

    One would have to pay for the latest standards, but there's a PDF 1971 version of EIA RS-198 which indicates a three-digit code. None of the low-value capacitors that I have observe that to the letter.

    According to the Yageo/Kemet chart that was pasted earlier, the zero is not stated to be optional and yet countless ceramic disc capacitors display fewer digits for the low values.

    I've checked a Vishay 22pF leaded MLCC I have here, it does not append a zero for the third digit either.

    I also checked some Wima polypropylene capacitors here, same story.

    Also, a TDK spec also mentions using an R for the decimal place for leaded MLCC (as does Murata for leaded MLCC, as mentioned further up).

    I think it's safe to say the precise coding method may well vary depending on manufacturer or where their product line or factory originated from, or simply age of the component, if the specs changed, or if they later decided to adhere to a particular standard or revision.

Reply
  • 0 in reply to misaz

    The OP's part is a Kemet part, so it's no surprise if the capacitor kit matches the same scheme as the OP's part.

    One would have to pay for the latest standards, but there's a PDF 1971 version of EIA RS-198 which indicates a three-digit code. None of the low-value capacitors that I have observe that to the letter.

    According to the Yageo/Kemet chart that was pasted earlier, the zero is not stated to be optional and yet countless ceramic disc capacitors display fewer digits for the low values.

    I've checked a Vishay 22pF leaded MLCC I have here, it does not append a zero for the third digit either.

    I also checked some Wima polypropylene capacitors here, same story.

    Also, a TDK spec also mentions using an R for the decimal place for leaded MLCC (as does Murata for leaded MLCC, as mentioned further up).

    I think it's safe to say the precise coding method may well vary depending on manufacturer or where their product line or factory originated from, or simply age of the component, if the specs changed, or if they later decided to adhere to a particular standard or revision.

Children
No Data