Help identifying an old circuit component

#12

Joined Nov 30, 2010
18,224
Seriously, I tend to absorb my environment. Three months with an artist friend and I could draw acceptable human characters. Six months before or after and I couldn't draw an acceptable circle.

Where do you spend time to absorb this kind of vocabulary?
 

#12

Joined Nov 30, 2010
18,224
Another point: The Internet is a good place to find the lowest common denominator. A science site like this will have a generally more educated population. I can't presume that people asking my advice will know that many words, especially the ESL people.
 
Seriously, I tend to absorb my environment. Three months with an artist friend and I could draw acceptable human characters. Six months before or after and I couldn't draw an acceptable circle.

Where do you spend time to absorb this kind of vocabulary?
Guess it's a holdover from protracted navigation of The Halls of Ivy... ;)
 

Thread Starter

JeffM

Joined Mar 9, 2015
13
Ok, I tested each OK at 10.3 ohm, then tested groups of 3 in parallel at 3.8~ ohm then tested those in parallel at ~1.3 ohm which adds up given the lead resistance factor. Must have had one of my outsourced laborers twisting the cables and shorted one.

So in this case the 100 is 10*1o^0 ohms to make 10 ohms? Let's blame the '80s for that, that doesn't sound like standard terminology.
 

#12

Joined Nov 30, 2010
18,224
yes, 10 x 10^0 is standard for capacitors. That's what led the wild goose chase.
and for HP, if you're a nerd, the Q&A is quite significant. It keeps the rust off my talents.
 

Thread Starter

JeffM

Joined Mar 9, 2015
13
Cool, my own non-50's-radio-show ivy wandering was way too short. Now I just try to stick to single syllable words and pictures. Worked pretty good there too. Thanks again for the help, the alarm clock cometh in <5h.
 
Ok, I tested each OK at 10.3 ohm, then tested groups of 3 in parallel at 3.8~ ohm then tested those in parallel at ~1.3 ohm which adds up given the lead resistance factor. Must have had one of my outsourced laborers twisting the cables and shorted one.

So in this case the 100 is 10*1o^0 ohms to make 10 ohms? Let's blame the '80s for that, that doesn't sound like standard terminology.
Call me obtuse but I still don't understand how 10 paralleled 10 ohm resistors = .3 ohms (actually 0 ohms considering the offset of your meter)? :eek: Re: The labeling, I agree! In avoidance of just such confusion a zero exponent is not generally used...
Dazed and confused
HP :D
 

#12

Joined Nov 30, 2010
18,224
That's probably a good thing for your sake! :eek:
Yes, my real life happens among average people. If I sound too pompous, there will be a smack-down. At one point, a fellow asked me outside because I don't drink alcohol! He thought I was ridiculing him with my behavior. o_O
 
Cool, my own non-50's-radio-show ivy wandering was way too short. Now I just try to stick to single syllable words and pictures. Worked pretty good there too. Thanks again for the help, the alarm clock cometh in <5h.
Nice chatting with you Jeff! :)

Best regards
HP
 
Last edited:
Yes, my real life happens among average people. If I sound too pompous, there will be a smack-down!
Aye and that's the rub! -- it seems common perception regards obfuscation and pomposity as inversely proportional, necessarily differential qualities (i.e. all that is not "ignorant" is pompous and vice-versa):rolleyes:
 

#12

Joined Nov 30, 2010
18,224
For most average people, "obfuscate" means the opposite of the way you used it.
Being literate IS obfuscation in their eyes. (or is that ears?)
 
For most average people, "obfuscate" means the opposite of the way you used it.
Being literate IS obfuscation in their eyes. (or is that ears?)
Indeed! it would seem the only 'transgression' worse than independent thinking is adroit communication (attempted or realized)...
 
Top