Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why do electronic components have such odd values? (2021)

digilent.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 168 posts

Re: Why do electronic components have such odd values? (2021)

#61

Post by picture »

_benj wrote: post #55
Workaccount2 wrote: post #22

Wikipedia has a nice table of these values that I actually have printed out and hanging above my bench. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_series_of_preferred_numbers#... The fact of the matter is that nowadays, E96 series resistors are readily available and dirt cheap. And if you need more precision than that, you either don't know much about electronics or you know a whole lot about electronics, heh.

There’s also part of, good designs don’t depend on high precision components. I think TAoE emphasized that. For high precision one can use trim potentiometers or maybe even digital potentiometer with an ADC at the other side to measure and get as close as possible, but otherwise depending on resistors for high precision is kinda rough (I’m think like an RC circuit that need a very specific resistance to meet some spe…

High precision resistors are often necessary for metrology applications like very precise and low drift voltage sources. Often parts like Vishay's same-substrate thin film resistor networks [0] are used, as the temperature of each resistor leg are kept the closely relative to each other, resulting in the ratio between them being stable against temperature changes. Even if you use some adjustable/tunable circuit, you usually still require some sort of precision resistor network as an original standard.

In general, however, it's much better to measure/sense physical phenomenon by first converting it into frequency, because it is much easier to measure frequency precisely. Using something like a TCXO from Seiko Epson with 1 ppm tolerance, and measuring over time, you can easily achieve 0.00001% precision and beyond. I know that strain gauges used in civil engineering often utilize this concept, where a metal string is "plucked" electronically and the frequency is then measured.

[0] https://www.vishay.com/docs/61010/ccc.pdf and https://foilresistors.com/docs/63120/hzseries.pdf

Re: Why do electronic components have such odd values? (2021)

#62

Post by racingmars »

joemi wrote: post #57
klodolph wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes—although E96 is cheap, I’m still very fond of E12. You get to keep less stock. I’ll even use two resistors rather than use something outside E12, most of the time. Maybe it’s habit? Hell, I don’t even think all of E12 is necessary. I’ll stick to E6 most of the time.

How do the tolerances combine when you're using two resistors? I'm pretty sure they'd add together if in series (so two 5%'s become 10%), but I'm having trouble easily intuiting what happens if in parallel. Do they combine in the same way that resistances combine when in parallel? edit: Actually, I'm not so sure anymore that the tolerances would add up in series... I should probably just look this stuff up, since I'm…

In series they don't add up... doing a quick example, I find that in the worst case (e.g. each resistor out by 5% in the same direction):

22 - 5% = 20.9

47 - 5% = 44.65

Actual resistance in series: 65.55

Nominal resistance in series: 69

69 - 5% = 65.55

So the combination of the components still appears to maintain the 5% tolerance.

Re: Why do electronic components have such odd values? (2021)

#63

Post by Denvercoder9 »

throw0101d wrote: post #34

This part is the thing that made me understand the numbering series: > […] Continuing this trend, rounding as needed, and we end up with the series 10, 15, 22, 33, 47, and 68. Components built to the E6 standard have a 20% relative error tolerance, and if we look at the values again we’ll see a trend. Starting with 10 again and adding 20% error we end up with 12. Moving to 15 and subtracting 20% we get… wait for it……

I feel like the author conflates tolerance in component value choice and fabrication tolerance. The E-series were chosen so that if you have perfect resistors (no fabrication tolerance) of only their values available, you can replace any resistor value you need with one from the series, and you'll never be more off than a fixed error (e.g. 20% for the E6 series).

This only works with perfect resistors, though. If your actual resistors have a fabrication tolerance, you might be more off. For example, if you need a 41 Ohm resistor, you can use a perfect 47 Ohm resistor from the E6-series, and you'll be within 20% error. However, if that 47 Ohm resistor has a 10% fabrication tolerance, in reality it might be 51 Ohm, and that's more than 20% off from the 41 Ohm you needed.

To take the example from the author's last paragraph, if you need a 70 Ohm resistor, the idea is not that you could be lucky and find an exact 70 Ohm in your E24 resistor set, but that you change the design to use a 68 Ohm instead, and don't introduce more than 5% off by doing so (regardless of the resistor value you needed).

Re: Why do electronic components have such odd values? (2021)

#64

Post by xw390112 »

throw0101d wrote: post #34

This part is the thing that made me understand the numbering series: > […] Continuing this trend, rounding as needed, and we end up with the series 10, 15, 22, 33, 47, and 68. Components built to the E6 standard have a 20% relative error tolerance, and if we look at the values again we’ll see a trend. Starting with 10 again and adding 20% error we end up with 12. Moving to 15 and subtracting 20% we get… wait for it……

[dead]

Re: Why do electronic components have such odd values? (2021)

#65

Post by contingencies »

picture wrote: post #61
_benj wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s also part of, good designs don’t depend on high precision components. I think TAoE emphasized that. For high precision one can use trim potentiometers or maybe even digital potentiometer with an ADC at the other side to measure and get as close as possible, but otherwise depending on resistors for high precision is kinda rough (I’m think like an RC circuit that need a very specific resistance to meet some spe…

High precision resistors are often necessary for metrology applications like very precise and low drift voltage sources. Often parts like Vishay's same-substrate thin film resistor networks [0] are used, as the temperature of each resistor leg are kept the closely relative to each other, resulting in the ratio between them being stable against temperature changes. Even if you use some adjustable/tunable circuit, you…

Neat. Next time I see resistors in a splayed or star configuration with one leg in shared proximity I will think of this comment.

Re: Why do electronic components have such odd values? (2021)

#66

Post by xw390112 »

Denvercoder9 wrote: post #63
throw0101d wrote: post #34

This part is the thing that made me understand the numbering series: > […] Continuing this trend, rounding as needed, and we end up with the series 10, 15, 22, 33, 47, and 68. Components built to the E6 standard have a 20% relative error tolerance, and if we look at the values again we’ll see a trend. Starting with 10 again and adding 20% error we end up with 12. Moving to 15 and subtracting 20% we get… wait for it……

I feel like the author conflates tolerance in component value choice and fabrication tolerance. The E-series were chosen so that if you have perfect resistors (no fabrication tolerance) of only their values available, you can replace any resistor value you need with one from the series, and you'll never be more off than a fixed error (e.g. 20% for the E6 series). This only works with perfect resistors, though. If you…

In 2024, if your resistor vendor has even 5% tolerance, you need to find another vendor.

Re: Why do electronic components have such odd values? (2021)

#67

Post by PhasmaFelis »

Slight sidetrack:

> We have to go back a few years to 1877 France. The French military used balloons for various purposes and of various sizes, and they had to be anchored using cables. Over time, they ended up with 425 different sizes of mooring cables that had to be individually ordered and inventoried. Talk about a nightmare. > > Enter Charles Renard. He was tasked with improving the balloons, but discovered this rat’s nest of cables in the inventory closet instead. He spent some time thinking about it and came up with a series of 17 cable sizes that would allow for every type of balloon to be properly moored.

I'm astonished that 425 distinct mooring-cable sizes were ever allowed to happen, and I'm also slightly astonished that even the cleaned-up version used 17. Anyone have more info about that? What were they doing with all those different-sized ropes? How many different balloon models could there have been?

Re: Why do electronic components have such odd values? (2021)

#69

Post by utensil4778 »

pikminguy wrote: post #42

The thing that's blowing my mind here is that this standard was adopted as ISO 3. It reminds me of the Simpsons joke that Mr. Burns' social security number is 000-00-0002.

I think a lot of people are surprised to learn just how old the field of electronics is. It's an easy mistake to make with the relative novelty of digital electronics, but the science has been around for a good long time

Re: Why do electronic components have such odd values? (2021)

#70

Post by riedel »

projektfu wrote: post #21
riedel wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fun fact is that afaik component values are often distributed in a bi-modal way because actually +-5% often means that they sorted out already the +-1% to sell as a different more expensive batch. At least it used to be that way. Wonder if it is still worth doing this in production. So I guess one could also measure to average things out otherwise the errors will stay the same relatively.

Unless the components are expensive, that proposition seems dubious. It's much more economical to take a process that produces everything within 12% centered on the desired value and sell it as ±20%. 100% inspection is generally to be avoided in mass production, except in cases where the process cannot reach that capability, chip manufacturing being the classic example. For parts that cost a fraction of a penny, nobo…

Actually it seems to be really the case that multimodal distribution are rather the result of batches not having a mean. So it is rather the effect of systematic error [1]. I guess it is really a myth (we did low cost RF designs back in 2005 and had some real issues with frequencies not aligning die to component spread and I really remember that bi modality problem, but I guess okhams razor should have told me that it makes no economical sense)

[1] https://www.eevblog.com/2011/11/14/eevblog-216-gaussian-resi...

Post reply on HN