fini Posted January 21, 2005 Share Posted January 21, 2005 Is the brown "milk dud" a capacitor of the same value as the Auricap? If so, did they change the nomenclature on caps (i.e. the old one, from my Fisher console, says ".047 K", where as the new Auricap says ".047 mfd")? When did this change occur? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frzninvt Posted January 21, 2005 Share Posted January 21, 2005 Fini the "K" stands for Kilo-Ohm if I am not mistaken. It looks like a resistor and not a cap though. To my knowledge capacitors have always been rated in micro-farads or farads depending on values. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3dzapper Posted January 21, 2005 Share Posted January 21, 2005 I stand corrected by Mr Dean. The K is the tolerance not the value. The .047 or .000000047F or .000047uF or .047 uF the u or that fancy m means 6 places after the decimal or the capacity of 1 millionth of one Farad which is one columb of electrons which is the amount of electrons that pass through a one Ohm resistor at one volt in one unit of time (sec) or one ampere that is it disipates one watt. Huh? Both uF and subscrirt K are still used by various manufacturers. Rick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fini Posted January 21, 2005 Author Share Posted January 21, 2005 That's what I was thinkin'... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted January 21, 2005 Share Posted January 21, 2005 No, the 'K' means + or - 10%. The value is the same -- go listen to some Rungren. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-MAN Posted January 21, 2005 Share Posted January 21, 2005 Fini, how do you get such gorgeous pictures? Mine always look like, well, you know... DM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fini Posted January 21, 2005 Author Share Posted January 21, 2005 ---------------- On 1/21/2005 12:25:13 PM D-MAN wrote: Fini, how do you get such gorgeous pictures? Mine always look like, well, you know... DM ---------------- That's easy! I'm a good photographer! Good camera (Sony DSC-S75), good use of controls, watching focus, etc. (didn't quite get it on that Auricap shot, though). Thanks for the compliment! Right now, I'd trade some of my camera ability for a bit of tube smarts... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boom3 Posted January 21, 2005 Share Posted January 21, 2005 One small footnote...the dashes on the left side of old cap indicate which lead is connected to the outer foil, and therefore that lead should be connected to ground (or the point closest to ground) in the circuit. That gives a slight bit of shielding in RF circuits, but I rather doubt it means anything at audio frequencies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-MAN Posted January 21, 2005 Share Posted January 21, 2005 ---------------- On 1/21/2005 1:19:10 PM fini wrote: That's easy! I'm a good photographer! Good camera (Sony DSC-S75), good use of controls, watching focus, etc. (didn't quite get it on that Auricap shot, though). Thanks for the compliment! Right now, I'd trade some of my camera ability for a bit of tube smarts... ---------------- So it's the camera! DM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LarryC Posted January 21, 2005 Share Posted January 21, 2005 ---------------- On 1/21/2005 1:19:10 PM fini wrote: Good camera (Sony DSC-S75), good use of controls, watching focus, etc. (didn't quite get it on that Auricap shot, though). ---------------- Fini, I am not familiar with that camera or series -- how did you do that very close-up macro shot? Was it mostly the standard macro function on the camera, or did you also photoshop it down? Either way, it looks like very good performance. Thanks, Larry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fini Posted January 21, 2005 Author Share Posted January 21, 2005 Larry, It was just standard macro. What I did do in Photoshop was crop and resize. That's why it looks so big. I usually shoot photos bigger than I post anyway, to get better detail. Have you noticed, Dean takes great close-up, too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LarryC Posted January 21, 2005 Share Posted January 21, 2005 ---------------- On 1/21/2005 3:57:52 PM fini wrote: Larry, It was just standard macro. What I did do in Photoshop was crop and resize. That's why it looks so big. I usually shoot photos bigger than I post anyway, to get better detail. Have you noticed, Dean takes great close-up, too. ---------------- I sure have noticed! I found it hard to believe he could do that and his other fine photography with a point-and-shoot, if that's what he uses. I think it says a lot for your Canon that it came out so well. My Nikon 5000 simply isn't much good for this, and I finally got an SLR digital to do better work in close-ups. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.