This is a bleg. It is a weird bleg which I will not explain other than to say: This is a favor for someone. I need to find a handbook published around 1995-1996 that contains information of the sort contained in this 2014 document which is the appendix of a longer document containing “classification of electronic components”. http://www.tdk.co.jp/eseat/etutorial_008.pdf
The date matters– the nearer to the correct date matters. It should be some sort of handbook. It’s the sort of things many libraries would have tossed having obtained newer ones. Does anyone have such a thing on their shelves? (I don’t have such a thing.)
Update: Thanks all. The radio book was just the right thing!
Try to find small schools with a declining enrollment with a defunct electronics major. Old lab, old shelf, old books.
timothy,
That’s the path we are trying to avoid by using the bleg. I figure of enough engineers read this they might have something on their shelve. Even resource from another time with a different date might help use do a library search for something with the correct date!
Please, what’s a bleg?
Like a TTL electronics handbook?
TI TTL Logic Databook copyright 1996
Standard TTL, Schottky, Low-Power Schottky
From that example PDF, I’m not sure if you’re looking for schematic symbols, SMT packages, transfer functions, or just a list of different passive components and their typical uses, but you might try finding an older edition of the Radio Amateur’s Handbook. They are published every year. I have a 2003 edition within easy reach, but I should have a ’90s edition around here somewhere.
It’s the words “blog” and “beg” smushed together.
That’s because this is not entirely clear. My sister is a law librarian, and her task is to find something ‘like this’. This is pretty much the description. For her, the difficulty is the years– otherwise she can come up with examples that might or might not be the ‘right thing’
MikeN–
I’ll look at TTL handbooks.
I can hazard a general guess as to what this may be about; but to make any progress I think you’ll have to be more specific as to what you need and why. In which case you’ll probably want to bring an electrical engineer in as a consultant.
For what it’s worth, I have an Active Electronic Components catalog from 1992. But the catalog isn’t dated; the date is on the cover letter that came with the catalog.
Brad R–
That might do if someone (i.e. big sis) can contact Active Electronics to find out the publication date.
Sis doesn’t know more. Just that someone wants to find such a thing. If you have something and can scan pages, I could send them to her as examples. After that, if it’s “the right rock” she can look further.
Lucia, I have the TTL book above. I’m not sure what to look for though. The book is more a listing of chips and the pin outputs.
Sorry I just have Art of Electronics 2nd ed published in 1990 and it doesn’t have the helpful chart you’ve posted.
The linked pdf is misleading, e.g. electronic components can be passive or active.
Is it specifically passive components you are interested in or electronic components in general?
RobWansbeck,
The only thing I know is something that characterizes “the way” that article does. You need to set aside the filter of assuming someone is trying to learn “about” something. Rather someone is trying to find examples of documents that “look like that one”– and the specific characteristic they are looking for…. ‘dunno. Because as far as I know the request is of the form get me “something like this”.
If you’ve worked retail, or been a librarian, you will recognize this sort of request. If you ask more, the further elaboration is “something like this”. The customer might want to be shown many things, and based on those they will refine. They aren’t asking a retail clerk or librarian to do the sifting for them, they want to see all the rocks.
RobertWanstack…
Sorry, my answer above is wrong. Your question was much better than my answer!!!
I reread the request.
Note table A2-1 in the pdf specifically categorizes things as “reactive” or “resistive”. Something like that table is what we want. Components characterized that way… that would be ‘it’. The rest is good too, but A2-1 would be good.
So: with respect to your question: I think they want something that explains which are which using the precise distinction you made.
Mike N
Is there anything like table A2-1 in that document? Anything that states whether a component is resistive or reactive?
The textbook “The Art of Electronics” by Horowitz and Hill presents much of the information in that table in Chapter 2 (I think—maybe 1 or 3)
There was a second edition in 1989—and many subsequent printings. The book was probably used as a textbook at Harvard in 1995-6.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_art_of_electronics
and
http://frank.harvard.edu/aoe
Chapter 1, “Foundations” – The Art of Electronics” gives details on most of this list. It does not include a summary table.
Second edition is 1989.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Art-Electronics-Paul-Horowitz/dp/0521370957/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1397411687&sr=8-1&keywords=art+of+electronics
p 29 “Circuits with capacitors and inductors are more complicated than the resistive circuits we talked about earlier, in that their behavior depends on frequency: A “voltage divider” containing a capacitor or inductor will have frequency dependent division ratio. In addition, circuits containing these components (known collectively as reactive components) “corrupt” input waveforms such as square waves, as we just saw.”
I would be surprised if anything on that list has any “significant” changes. Smells like a patent case? Ugh.
Otherwise you should be able to track down some intro EE textbooks from that era.
You could try this, will need to find 1st edition which was 1995
http://www.amazon.com/Engineering-Handbook-Second-Edition-Electrical/dp/0849315867
“Note table A2-1 in the pdf specifically categorizes things as “reactive†or “resistiveâ€. Something like that table is what we want. Components characterized that way… that would be ‘it’.”
Ah. You can toss the PDF I sent you, then; that kind of categorization isn’t found in a components catalog.
The Art of Electronics (Horowitz and Hill) should have all of the information although it would have to be dug out by someone with a clue. it certainly would be authoritative as a standard text. Eli should also have some catalogs and handbooks from the period. Will take a look tomorrow.
I’ve not seen such a table in the Art of Electronics or as far as I recall any other handbook.
All the individual information is widely available but not a table separating resistive and reactive components.
Just to clarify, active and passive are subsets of ‘electronic component’. Resistive and reactive are subsets of ‘passive’. The pdf gets this wrong. It also states regarding reactive components:
“The latter components are lossless, so they are used in order to control signal or electric powerâ€.
This is misleading to anyone who would need a table to differentiate between resistive and reactive components.
I could bore you with more but, in my extremely humble opinion, the text in the pdf looks more like a student’s homework than an expert reference.
The ARRL Handbook for Radio Amateurs – 1995 has Chap 5 DC Theory and Resistive Components and Chapter 6 AC Theory and Reactive Components that covers most of the same material.
The thing that puzzles me about this is that someone designing with surface mount devices and components would almost certainly use the manufacturers’ data sheets.
I cannot imagine how a general work which might mis-characterize some class of component could possibly have been the basis of design for a manufactured product.
I suppose I could be wrong about this Lucia, but I get the impression that someone, definitely not an engineer, is attempting to reverse-engineer something back to original information sources without understanding how this sort of thing is generally done.
I could see how something like this might have occurred with an amateur designer using through-hole components, but there is so much more work required to scratch-build with SMD’s that I would think anyone who did would also do his/her homework – manufacturers’ data sheets.
j ferguson: I don’t think this is a design exercise. I have the vague notion that someone is claiming intellectual property in such a table, and someone else is looking for prior art to invalidate that claim.
That could be tricky. Yes, all of the information about resistive and reactive components is available in The Art of Electronics, or the ARRL Handbook, but it is organized differently. If it’s the organization of that information that is being claimed — and with my limited knowledge of IP law, I don’t know if or how that can be claimed — then having the same information in a different organization would be of limited value.
However, I may be overstepping the bounds of propriety here, so ’nuff said.
JSW – thanks for checking the 1995 ARRL Handbook. I’m sure I have a 1993 edition around here somewhere, but I haven’t been able to find it.
BradR,
I don’t know what it is. But I know it’s not a design exercise.
I don’t have any idea what the claim is. Nor does the person who is sent to find the document. As for things in other organizations: all I can do is pass that info along. It them may be “the right rock” or not. I don’t know. It’s useful. I can send her the titles at least.
Lucia: would information before 1995 be useful? “Around 1995-1996” is a bit restrictive.
Dear Lucia
You amy find the information in one of the professional institutions in the states. Our equivalent of the Insitution of Electrical Engineers etc.
You would probably need a member to do a search of their library for you although I’m not certain this would be necessary.
Prior art: Sushi menu maybe. I suppose one with electric eel sashimi. 😉
The pdf looks far more like something that would be used in a tech school course than something for engineers.
DeVry Institute?
BradR,
I don’t know. I would assume 1950 would not be useful. I don’t know how tight the time table is. But if you round 1994 on your shelf, it’s likely someone could request a 1995 version, or it would turn out 1994 is ok. I can’t say because I don’t know enough about the background. If you have 1990-1995, it’s probably worth scanning, sending me a pdf, sending the title, etc.
j ferguson: the tutorial PDF is part of TDK’s Selection Assistant for TDK components: http://www.tdk.co.jp/eseat/ It’s Appendix 2 under the “tutorial” link: http://www.tdk.co.jp/eseat/tutorial.htm
FWIW – When I saw the table said to myself:
0) This is an interesting representation.
1) I have not seen the information presented with those column attributes ins a single table in my many years of amateur tinkering & technical work.
2) The descriptive sections are not well written and/or are inaccurate (as others have commented on)
BradR,
I see what you are saying but it still seems a bit basic for someone who might be designing with their devices. But then maybe the Japanese see it differently. the 1963 shop manual for the Honda Dream (305) motorcycle contained an entire chapter addressed to spark plug technology. It would have been sufficient for almost all of those using the manual to simply list which plugs the bike used under various conditions.
But instead there was this chapter – amazingly entitled “The Magic of the Spark Maker” or so it was translated in the English version
73
FWIW: The term “reactive component” is almost never used in practice (actually never in my experience). R’s. L’s, and C’s all have their own unique characteristics and are used where these characteristics are useful, tuned frequency filtering in power supplies or frequency filtering an electrical signal of interest for example.
I have never heard someone say, “I need a reactive component here”.
The table is not in the TTL book, but the level of detail leads me to think that other TI books would have this.
I’ve sent my preliminary info to my sis. She’s also contacted various libraries at technical institutes and so on.
Going from memory, the Appendix 2 stuff in the tdk link looks very similar to information published in a McGraw-Hill electronics handbooks, or perhaps in a pocket electronics reference (a small handbook)?
I may still have a pocket handbook at home from the correct time frame. I’ll look for it this evening.
I have AofE as well, but my first instinct after seeing the tdk link would be to check out some McGraw Hill handbooks, if you can find them.
Suggest exploring books.google.com
e.g. Classification of electronic components handbook from 1995-1996.
Note: If this is to identify prior art for a patent issue, than ANY prior date will work.
From Analog and Computer Electronics for Scientists by Bassos and Ewing 1993 pg 21
The reactance is that portion of the impedance that is due to the nonresistive properties of the conponent and is described by an imaginary number. If the component also has resistance, then its totla impedance is the combination of the reatance and resistance both of which have the same units (ohms). Consequently the impedance is generally a complex quantity, of which the pure resistance is the real part, while the reactance is the imaginary part. For example, a particular impedance might be represented by the quantity Z=50 + j60, which would mean that the resistance is 50 ohms and the reactance is 60 ohms. A positive imaginary part indicates an inductive component, the negative sign a capacitive component. An ohmmeter measures only the real component (except if capacitors are present in series, thus preventing any DC current flow”
You can find this and similar almost everywhere.
Also see Illustrated Handbook of Electronic Tables, Symbols, Measurements and Values, Raymond Ludwig (1984 second edition) see section 3 and maybe 3.9 and 3.9.2 Impedence and phase angles for resistors, capacitors and inductors.
Eli,
Thanks! You’re a mensch for looking.
I know we can find that. My sister had found stuff like that, but evidently that’s “not the right rock”. The person wants “something like the table”, not “something which an informed person could use to create or check the table”. Alas….
She would like me to convey my thanks to everyone btw. And I thank you all too.
As an active designer from well before then I was used to acres of component manufacturer’s publications. Not much was via modem.
Perhaps you also need to consider CAD.
I’ve stuff here which has not been junked yet, what though is actually wanted? Stands up, reach, SAW filters 1990/91