×
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.  (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

Very interesting question. I think that I remember 31.5 and 63 being used by Americans (or British) many years ago. Where did those values come from?

Gunnar Englund

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


It appears that the differences are a compromise between rounding and keeping adjacent ratios as close to 1.21 as possible.

27/22 is closer than 26/22,
and having chosen 27, then
33/27 is closer than 32/27

this breaks down at 39, because 40 would be considerably closer, but 39 is closer to the unrounded value than 40 and is still too high.

I don't know the actual history, but this appears to be a least mean fit where both the ratios between adjacent pairs and the absolute error were added in.

If you find out definitively, I'd enjoy the post.

DspDad

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