×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Historical question û origin of EIA resistor (mistaken?) values

Historical question û origin of EIA resistor (mistaken?) values

Historical question û origin of EIA resistor (mistaken?) values

(OP)
We all know the standard (5%, 10%, or 20%) EIA resistor values.  For example, the E12 series (10%) are 10, 12, 15, 18, 22, 27, 33, 39, 47, 56, 68 and 82.

These values were supposed to have been derived from the mathematical series of equally spacing values logarithmically for each decade(*).  When calculating to arrive to values, we get following (rounded off to 2 significant digits:  10, 12, 15, 18, 22, 26, 32, 38, 47, 56, 68 and 83.  Note the discrepancy for 5 out of 12 values (26, 32, 38, 46, 83) from actual used values used.  (BTW: the 1% series values, E96, are correct!)

Can anyone shed light on this (mistake?).  Did someone goof around the turn of the century?

---Jim

(*)  For E12 series:  k=10^(1/12)= 1.2115277
     Values are then:  k^n  (n=0,…,11)

RE: Historical question û origin of EIA resistor (mistaken?) values

I think it had to do with color coating of the resistors.

RE: Historical question û origin of EIA resistor (mistaken?) values

Maybe for calculating the values the factor has 1,2115277 has been rounded or truncated to a lower number of significant digits. Remember, these standards were published at a time before scientific calculators were available to everyone.

RE: Historical question û origin of EIA resistor (mistaken?) values

electricuwe-I think you are right. They would use a side rule in those days.

RE: Historical question û origin of EIA resistor (mistaken?) values

(OP)
Thanks electricuwe and advidana for your insights.

I tried calculating with coarser roundoffs and truncations, but this didn't yield better results to justify chosen values.  For example, when I used 1.21 as k, things got worse as six values were off (instead of five).  And you may note that the calculated  83 values is higher rather that lower like other off values.

While recognizing they may have used slide rules, the fact is that log tables (with at least 4 sig. digits) were available and widely used more than 100 years ago.

My guess is is someone didn't bother for better accuracy and used a slide rule sloppily to arrive at today's resistor values.

My hope is that another "historian" on this board will share more.

jim s.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources