How to read the value of this capacitor?
9
$begingroup$
I came across this capacitor in a voltage converter which was converting 9V to 5V. This capacitor was connected at the output of M7805CT (i.e. between the 5V and common terminal) in parallel to another 470μF electrolytic capacitor. I cannot find a definite value of this capacitor. Different websites are providing different values of this coded capacitor. Here is the screenshot of what google search returned.
Please help in decoding the value of this capacitor.
capacitor
asked Mar 15 at 15:52
Jigar FariaJigar Faria
483
$endgroup$
add a comment |
9
$begingroup$
I came across this capacitor in a voltage converter which was converting 9V to 5V. This capacitor was connected at the output of M7805CT (i.e. between the 5V and common terminal) in parallel to another 470μF electrolytic capacitor. I cannot find a definite value of this capacitor. Different websites are providing different values of this coded capacitor. Here is the screenshot of what google search returned.
Please help in decoding the value of this capacitor.
capacitor
asked Mar 15 at 15:52
Jigar FariaJigar Faria
483
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
How about measuring the capacitance?
$endgroup$
– Cecil - W5DXP
Mar 15 at 15:56
$begingroup$
Distributors often use the same photo for capacitors of different value.
$endgroup$
– Steve G
Mar 15 at 16:01
add a comment |
9
9
9
1
$begingroup$
I came across this capacitor in a voltage converter which was converting 9V to 5V. This capacitor was connected at the output of M7805CT (i.e. between the 5V and common terminal) in parallel to another 470μF electrolytic capacitor. I cannot find a definite value of this capacitor. Different websites are providing different values of this coded capacitor. Here is the screenshot of what google search returned.
Please help in decoding the value of this capacitor.
capacitor
asked Mar 15 at 15:52
Jigar FariaJigar Faria
483
$endgroup$
I came across this capacitor in a voltage converter which was converting 9V to 5V. This capacitor was connected at the output of M7805CT (i.e. between the 5V and common terminal) in parallel to another 470μF electrolytic capacitor. I cannot find a definite value of this capacitor. Different websites are providing different values of this coded capacitor. Here is the screenshot of what google search returned.
Please help in decoding the value of this capacitor.
capacitor
capacitor
asked Mar 15 at 15:52
Jigar FariaJigar Faria
483
asked Mar 15 at 15:52
Jigar FariaJigar Faria
483
asked Mar 15 at 15:52
Jigar FariaJigar Faria
483
asked Mar 15 at 15:52
Jigar FariaJigar Faria
483
asked Mar 15 at 15:52
Jigar FariaJigar Faria
483
483
1
$begingroup$
How about measuring the capacitance?
$endgroup$
– Cecil - W5DXP
Mar 15 at 15:56
$begingroup$
Distributors often use the same photo for capacitors of different value.
$endgroup$
– Steve G
Mar 15 at 16:01
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
How about measuring the capacitance?
$endgroup$
– Cecil - W5DXP
Mar 15 at 15:56
$begingroup$
Distributors often use the same photo for capacitors of different value.
$endgroup$
– Steve G
Mar 15 at 16:01
1
1
$begingroup$
How about measuring the capacitance?
$endgroup$
– Cecil - W5DXP
Mar 15 at 15:56
$begingroup$
How about measuring the capacitance?
$endgroup$
– Cecil - W5DXP
Mar 15 at 15:56
$begingroup$
Distributors often use the same photo for capacitors of different value.
$endgroup$
– Steve G
Mar 15 at 16:01
$begingroup$
Distributors often use the same photo for capacitors of different value.
$endgroup$
– Steve G
Mar 15 at 16:01
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
19
$begingroup$
0.1uF (100nF) +/-5% tolerance (J), 100VDC rating.
It's a polyester (probably) film capacitor.
Here is a similar type of capacitor (maybe the same type) from Kemet.
answered Mar 15 at 15:54
Spehro PefhanySpehro Pefhany
211k5162425
$endgroup$
add a comment |
3
$begingroup$
Sphero Pefhany already provided the correct answer. Also check the comments below this answer.
The capacitors you mention are NOT using the default capacitor code, which normally is 3 digits for the value followed by one character for the tolerance, and optionally prefixed by a multiplier.
In this link there is a table: Capacitor-Codes
And at the bottom is an additional description (which do not apply your capacitor).
answered Mar 15 at 16:08
Michel KeijzersMichel Keijzers
6,56092969
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
This isn't too helpful for this particular capacitor though. This one is labelled differently to the table in your link. The capacitor in the question is 100nF, or 0.1µF. According to your link, this should have a code of 104 (which, to be fair, the majority of capacitors do!), so while this link is good for finding values on the majority of capacitors, it is not much use for this particular one (with the exception of tolerance).
$endgroup$
– MCG
Mar 15 at 16:17
3
$begingroup$
@SunnyskyguyEE75 my downvote was based on the fact that this answer does not correspond to this particular question. If it was an answer to a question about standardised capacitor codes, it would have certainly got an upvote. I cast my votes based on how well the answer actually answers the question being asked. However, I always leave a comment explaining my reasoning, and if it is fixed, my vote will usually change. I personally believe this is a good way of voting, I am not one to downvote and leave. I think most users would appreciate this, as I do for people who help me improve my answers
$endgroup$
– MCG
Mar 15 at 16:26
2
$begingroup$
I appreciate those who improve answer more that criticize it
$endgroup$
– Sunnyskyguy EE75
Mar 15 at 16:29
2
$begingroup$
@SunnyskyguyEE75 your comment is completely irrelevant. Yes, this answer shows the way parts should be labelled. I am not disputing that. My comment was a response to the fact that this particular answer was not relevant to the question asked. Just because you don't like the labeling and would not choose the part does not mean the answer should be treated as correct. I think you are overreacting to what was literally a simple comment on how the answer could be improved. By the edit on the answer, Michel has taken the comments into consideration.......
$endgroup$
– MCG
Mar 17 at 15:45
2
$begingroup$
..... instead of arguing, which shows he understood the points made, and as such, his answer is now relative to the original question. This also proves that my comment was useful. Also, @WoJ I did cast a down vote on this answer, along with a reason explaining why. Now the point I made was addressed and the answer edited, I have removed my down vote. That is what the voting and commenting is for. To improve the quality of the answers and to keep them relevant to the question (although sunnyskyguy apparently thinks the question is irrelevant to the answer for some reason!)
$endgroup$
– MCG
Mar 17 at 15:46
|
show 8 more comments
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["\$", "\$"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("schematics", function () {
StackExchange.schematics.init();
});
}, "cicuitlab");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "135"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
draft saved
draft discarded
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2felectronics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f427402%2fhow-to-read-the-value-of-this-capacitor%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
19
$begingroup$
0.1uF (100nF) +/-5% tolerance (J), 100VDC rating.
It's a polyester (probably) film capacitor.
Here is a similar type of capacitor (maybe the same type) from Kemet.
answered Mar 15 at 15:54
Spehro PefhanySpehro Pefhany
211k5162425
$endgroup$
add a comment |
19
$begingroup$
0.1uF (100nF) +/-5% tolerance (J), 100VDC rating.
It's a polyester (probably) film capacitor.
Here is a similar type of capacitor (maybe the same type) from Kemet.
answered Mar 15 at 15:54
Spehro PefhanySpehro Pefhany
211k5162425
$endgroup$
add a comment |
19
19
19
$begingroup$
0.1uF (100nF) +/-5% tolerance (J), 100VDC rating.
It's a polyester (probably) film capacitor.
Here is a similar type of capacitor (maybe the same type) from Kemet.
answered Mar 15 at 15:54
Spehro PefhanySpehro Pefhany
211k5162425
$endgroup$
0.1uF (100nF) +/-5% tolerance (J), 100VDC rating.
It's a polyester (probably) film capacitor.
Here is a similar type of capacitor (maybe the same type) from Kemet.
answered Mar 15 at 15:54
Spehro PefhanySpehro Pefhany
211k5162425
edited Mar 15 at 16:39
answered Mar 15 at 15:54
Spehro PefhanySpehro Pefhany
211k5162425
answered Mar 15 at 15:54
Spehro PefhanySpehro Pefhany
211k5162425
answered Mar 15 at 15:54
Spehro PefhanySpehro Pefhany
211k5162425
211k5162425
add a comment |
add a comment |
3
$begingroup$
Sphero Pefhany already provided the correct answer. Also check the comments below this answer.
The capacitors you mention are NOT using the default capacitor code, which normally is 3 digits for the value followed by one character for the tolerance, and optionally prefixed by a multiplier.
In this link there is a table: Capacitor-Codes
And at the bottom is an additional description (which do not apply your capacitor).
answered Mar 15 at 16:08
Michel KeijzersMichel Keijzers
6,56092969
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
This isn't too helpful for this particular capacitor though. This one is labelled differently to the table in your link. The capacitor in the question is 100nF, or 0.1µF. According to your link, this should have a code of 104 (which, to be fair, the majority of capacitors do!), so while this link is good for finding values on the majority of capacitors, it is not much use for this particular one (with the exception of tolerance).
$endgroup$
– MCG
Mar 15 at 16:17
3
$begingroup$
@SunnyskyguyEE75 my downvote was based on the fact that this answer does not correspond to this particular question. If it was an answer to a question about standardised capacitor codes, it would have certainly got an upvote. I cast my votes based on how well the answer actually answers the question being asked. However, I always leave a comment explaining my reasoning, and if it is fixed, my vote will usually change. I personally believe this is a good way of voting, I am not one to downvote and leave. I think most users would appreciate this, as I do for people who help me improve my answers
$endgroup$
– MCG
Mar 15 at 16:26
2
$begingroup$
I appreciate those who improve answer more that criticize it
$endgroup$
– Sunnyskyguy EE75
Mar 15 at 16:29
2
$begingroup$
@SunnyskyguyEE75 your comment is completely irrelevant. Yes, this answer shows the way parts should be labelled. I am not disputing that. My comment was a response to the fact that this particular answer was not relevant to the question asked. Just because you don't like the labeling and would not choose the part does not mean the answer should be treated as correct. I think you are overreacting to what was literally a simple comment on how the answer could be improved. By the edit on the answer, Michel has taken the comments into consideration.......
$endgroup$
– MCG
Mar 17 at 15:45
2
$begingroup$
..... instead of arguing, which shows he understood the points made, and as such, his answer is now relative to the original question. This also proves that my comment was useful. Also, @WoJ I did cast a down vote on this answer, along with a reason explaining why. Now the point I made was addressed and the answer edited, I have removed my down vote. That is what the voting and commenting is for. To improve the quality of the answers and to keep them relevant to the question (although sunnyskyguy apparently thinks the question is irrelevant to the answer for some reason!)
$endgroup$
– MCG
Mar 17 at 15:46
|
show 8 more comments
3
$begingroup$
Sphero Pefhany already provided the correct answer. Also check the comments below this answer.
The capacitors you mention are NOT using the default capacitor code, which normally is 3 digits for the value followed by one character for the tolerance, and optionally prefixed by a multiplier.
In this link there is a table: Capacitor-Codes
And at the bottom is an additional description (which do not apply your capacitor).
answered Mar 15 at 16:08
Michel KeijzersMichel Keijzers
6,56092969
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
This isn't too helpful for this particular capacitor though. This one is labelled differently to the table in your link. The capacitor in the question is 100nF, or 0.1µF. According to your link, this should have a code of 104 (which, to be fair, the majority of capacitors do!), so while this link is good for finding values on the majority of capacitors, it is not much use for this particular one (with the exception of tolerance).
$endgroup$
– MCG
Mar 15 at 16:17
3
$begingroup$
@SunnyskyguyEE75 my downvote was based on the fact that this answer does not correspond to this particular question. If it was an answer to a question about standardised capacitor codes, it would have certainly got an upvote. I cast my votes based on how well the answer actually answers the question being asked. However, I always leave a comment explaining my reasoning, and if it is fixed, my vote will usually change. I personally believe this is a good way of voting, I am not one to downvote and leave. I think most users would appreciate this, as I do for people who help me improve my answers
$endgroup$
– MCG
Mar 15 at 16:26
2
$begingroup$
I appreciate those who improve answer more that criticize it
$endgroup$
– Sunnyskyguy EE75
Mar 15 at 16:29
2
$begingroup$
@SunnyskyguyEE75 your comment is completely irrelevant. Yes, this answer shows the way parts should be labelled. I am not disputing that. My comment was a response to the fact that this particular answer was not relevant to the question asked. Just because you don't like the labeling and would not choose the part does not mean the answer should be treated as correct. I think you are overreacting to what was literally a simple comment on how the answer could be improved. By the edit on the answer, Michel has taken the comments into consideration.......
$endgroup$
– MCG
Mar 17 at 15:45
2
$begingroup$
..... instead of arguing, which shows he understood the points made, and as such, his answer is now relative to the original question. This also proves that my comment was useful. Also, @WoJ I did cast a down vote on this answer, along with a reason explaining why. Now the point I made was addressed and the answer edited, I have removed my down vote. That is what the voting and commenting is for. To improve the quality of the answers and to keep them relevant to the question (although sunnyskyguy apparently thinks the question is irrelevant to the answer for some reason!)
$endgroup$
– MCG
Mar 17 at 15:46
|
show 8 more comments
3
3
3
$begingroup$
Sphero Pefhany already provided the correct answer. Also check the comments below this answer.
The capacitors you mention are NOT using the default capacitor code, which normally is 3 digits for the value followed by one character for the tolerance, and optionally prefixed by a multiplier.
In this link there is a table: Capacitor-Codes
And at the bottom is an additional description (which do not apply your capacitor).
answered Mar 15 at 16:08
Michel KeijzersMichel Keijzers
6,56092969
$endgroup$
Sphero Pefhany already provided the correct answer. Also check the comments below this answer.
The capacitors you mention are NOT using the default capacitor code, which normally is 3 digits for the value followed by one character for the tolerance, and optionally prefixed by a multiplier.
In this link there is a table: Capacitor-Codes
And at the bottom is an additional description (which do not apply your capacitor).
answered Mar 15 at 16:08
Michel KeijzersMichel Keijzers
6,56092969
edited Mar 15 at 21:42
answered Mar 15 at 16:08
Michel KeijzersMichel Keijzers
6,56092969
answered Mar 15 at 16:08
Michel KeijzersMichel Keijzers
6,56092969
answered Mar 15 at 16:08
Michel KeijzersMichel Keijzers
6,56092969
6,56092969
3
$begingroup$
This isn't too helpful for this particular capacitor though. This one is labelled differently to the table in your link. The capacitor in the question is 100nF, or 0.1µF. According to your link, this should have a code of 104 (which, to be fair, the majority of capacitors do!), so while this link is good for finding values on the majority of capacitors, it is not much use for this particular one (with the exception of tolerance).
$endgroup$
– MCG
Mar 15 at 16:17
3
$begingroup$
@SunnyskyguyEE75 my downvote was based on the fact that this answer does not correspond to this particular question. If it was an answer to a question about standardised capacitor codes, it would have certainly got an upvote. I cast my votes based on how well the answer actually answers the question being asked. However, I always leave a comment explaining my reasoning, and if it is fixed, my vote will usually change. I personally believe this is a good way of voting, I am not one to downvote and leave. I think most users would appreciate this, as I do for people who help me improve my answers
$endgroup$
– MCG
Mar 15 at 16:26
2
$begingroup$
I appreciate those who improve answer more that criticize it
$endgroup$
– Sunnyskyguy EE75
Mar 15 at 16:29
2
$begingroup$
@SunnyskyguyEE75 your comment is completely irrelevant. Yes, this answer shows the way parts should be labelled. I am not disputing that. My comment was a response to the fact that this particular answer was not relevant to the question asked. Just because you don't like the labeling and would not choose the part does not mean the answer should be treated as correct. I think you are overreacting to what was literally a simple comment on how the answer could be improved. By the edit on the answer, Michel has taken the comments into consideration.......
$endgroup$
– MCG
Mar 17 at 15:45
2
$begingroup$
..... instead of arguing, which shows he understood the points made, and as such, his answer is now relative to the original question. This also proves that my comment was useful. Also, @WoJ I did cast a down vote on this answer, along with a reason explaining why. Now the point I made was addressed and the answer edited, I have removed my down vote. That is what the voting and commenting is for. To improve the quality of the answers and to keep them relevant to the question (although sunnyskyguy apparently thinks the question is irrelevant to the answer for some reason!)
$endgroup$
– MCG
Mar 17 at 15:46
|
show 8 more comments
3
$begingroup$
This isn't too helpful for this particular capacitor though. This one is labelled differently to the table in your link. The capacitor in the question is 100nF, or 0.1µF. According to your link, this should have a code of 104 (which, to be fair, the majority of capacitors do!), so while this link is good for finding values on the majority of capacitors, it is not much use for this particular one (with the exception of tolerance).
$endgroup$
– MCG
Mar 15 at 16:17
3
$begingroup$
@SunnyskyguyEE75 my downvote was based on the fact that this answer does not correspond to this particular question. If it was an answer to a question about standardised capacitor codes, it would have certainly got an upvote. I cast my votes based on how well the answer actually answers the question being asked. However, I always leave a comment explaining my reasoning, and if it is fixed, my vote will usually change. I personally believe this is a good way of voting, I am not one to downvote and leave. I think most users would appreciate this, as I do for people who help me improve my answers
$endgroup$
– MCG
Mar 15 at 16:26
2
$begingroup$
I appreciate those who improve answer more that criticize it
$endgroup$
– Sunnyskyguy EE75
Mar 15 at 16:29
2
$begingroup$
@SunnyskyguyEE75 your comment is completely irrelevant. Yes, this answer shows the way parts should be labelled. I am not disputing that. My comment was a response to the fact that this particular answer was not relevant to the question asked. Just because you don't like the labeling and would not choose the part does not mean the answer should be treated as correct. I think you are overreacting to what was literally a simple comment on how the answer could be improved. By the edit on the answer, Michel has taken the comments into consideration.......
$endgroup$
– MCG
Mar 17 at 15:45
2
$begingroup$
..... instead of arguing, which shows he understood the points made, and as such, his answer is now relative to the original question. This also proves that my comment was useful. Also, @WoJ I did cast a down vote on this answer, along with a reason explaining why. Now the point I made was addressed and the answer edited, I have removed my down vote. That is what the voting and commenting is for. To improve the quality of the answers and to keep them relevant to the question (although sunnyskyguy apparently thinks the question is irrelevant to the answer for some reason!)
$endgroup$
– MCG
Mar 17 at 15:46
3
3
$begingroup$
This isn't too helpful for this particular capacitor though. This one is labelled differently to the table in your link. The capacitor in the question is 100nF, or 0.1µF. According to your link, this should have a code of 104 (which, to be fair, the majority of capacitors do!), so while this link is good for finding values on the majority of capacitors, it is not much use for this particular one (with the exception of tolerance).
$endgroup$
– MCG
Mar 15 at 16:17
$begingroup$
This isn't too helpful for this particular capacitor though. This one is labelled differently to the table in your link. The capacitor in the question is 100nF, or 0.1µF. According to your link, this should have a code of 104 (which, to be fair, the majority of capacitors do!), so while this link is good for finding values on the majority of capacitors, it is not much use for this particular one (with the exception of tolerance).
$endgroup$
– MCG
Mar 15 at 16:17
3
3
$begingroup$
@SunnyskyguyEE75 my downvote was based on the fact that this answer does not correspond to this particular question. If it was an answer to a question about standardised capacitor codes, it would have certainly got an upvote. I cast my votes based on how well the answer actually answers the question being asked. However, I always leave a comment explaining my reasoning, and if it is fixed, my vote will usually change. I personally believe this is a good way of voting, I am not one to downvote and leave. I think most users would appreciate this, as I do for people who help me improve my answers
$endgroup$
– MCG
Mar 15 at 16:26
$begingroup$
@SunnyskyguyEE75 my downvote was based on the fact that this answer does not correspond to this particular question. If it was an answer to a question about standardised capacitor codes, it would have certainly got an upvote. I cast my votes based on how well the answer actually answers the question being asked. However, I always leave a comment explaining my reasoning, and if it is fixed, my vote will usually change. I personally believe this is a good way of voting, I am not one to downvote and leave. I think most users would appreciate this, as I do for people who help me improve my answers
$endgroup$
– MCG
Mar 15 at 16:26
2
2
$begingroup$
I appreciate those who improve answer more that criticize it
$endgroup$
– Sunnyskyguy EE75
Mar 15 at 16:29
$begingroup$
I appreciate those who improve answer more that criticize it
$endgroup$
– Sunnyskyguy EE75
Mar 15 at 16:29
2
2
$begingroup$
@SunnyskyguyEE75 your comment is completely irrelevant. Yes, this answer shows the way parts should be labelled. I am not disputing that. My comment was a response to the fact that this particular answer was not relevant to the question asked. Just because you don't like the labeling and would not choose the part does not mean the answer should be treated as correct. I think you are overreacting to what was literally a simple comment on how the answer could be improved. By the edit on the answer, Michel has taken the comments into consideration.......
$endgroup$
– MCG
Mar 17 at 15:45
$begingroup$
@SunnyskyguyEE75 your comment is completely irrelevant. Yes, this answer shows the way parts should be labelled. I am not disputing that. My comment was a response to the fact that this particular answer was not relevant to the question asked. Just because you don't like the labeling and would not choose the part does not mean the answer should be treated as correct. I think you are overreacting to what was literally a simple comment on how the answer could be improved. By the edit on the answer, Michel has taken the comments into consideration.......
$endgroup$
– MCG
Mar 17 at 15:45
2
2
$begingroup$
..... instead of arguing, which shows he understood the points made, and as such, his answer is now relative to the original question. This also proves that my comment was useful. Also, @WoJ I did cast a down vote on this answer, along with a reason explaining why. Now the point I made was addressed and the answer edited, I have removed my down vote. That is what the voting and commenting is for. To improve the quality of the answers and to keep them relevant to the question (although sunnyskyguy apparently thinks the question is irrelevant to the answer for some reason!)
$endgroup$
– MCG
Mar 17 at 15:46
$begingroup$
..... instead of arguing, which shows he understood the points made, and as such, his answer is now relative to the original question. This also proves that my comment was useful. Also, @WoJ I did cast a down vote on this answer, along with a reason explaining why. Now the point I made was addressed and the answer edited, I have removed my down vote. That is what the voting and commenting is for. To improve the quality of the answers and to keep them relevant to the question (although sunnyskyguy apparently thinks the question is irrelevant to the answer for some reason!)
$endgroup$
– MCG
Mar 17 at 15:46
|
show 8 more comments
draft saved
draft discarded
Thanks for contributing an answer to Electrical Engineering Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
draft saved
draft discarded
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2felectronics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f427402%2fhow-to-read-the-value-of-this-capacitor%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
$begingroup$
How about measuring the capacitance?
$endgroup$
– Cecil - W5DXP
Mar 15 at 15:56
$begingroup$
Distributors often use the same photo for capacitors of different value.
$endgroup$
– Steve G
Mar 15 at 16:01