One serious shortcome of this system is that a tech in the field would have
a tough or impossible time replacing a known defective capacitor, say
shorted, with the correct value without a cross reference of mil numbers vs
value. The system is oxymoronic in this case as is military intelligence in
many more and I served!
73
Hank WD5JFR
"Avery Fineman" wrote in message
...
In article om, "Henry
Kolesnik" writes:

I've measured several on two different capacitor meters and all read
close
to what the factory told me. I wonder why they coded the values with
numbers that don't make any sense? Military intellligence?

No, Hank, having a new number set to anything is the result of every
manufacturer assigning THEIR own arbitrary number or letter ID to
their products. The military and the government is stuck with a
TOTAL variety of spare parts that can boggle the mind...and does
sometimes tax the efforts of those responsible for maintaining the
logistics of vital parts of EVERYTHING for our government's needs.

I've been up to my elbows in Mil Specs quite enough in the past
half century and just accept it as part of the environment. If you
consult those Mil Specs long enough, you will see that there IS an
order on ID, nomenclature, and so forth. Not only that, but aside
from COTS stocks, a tantalum cap built to a certain Mil Spec will
be the same value, size, rating, and shape from another
manufacturer. Same with resistors, inductors, etc., etc., etc.

Try that with more than one commercial component manufacturer
especially when there's a production run going on and the parts
supply is lagging and the parts from another manufacturer don't
fit. Deep trouble time. Or one manufacturer may add on some
suffix letters or numbers to a so-called "standard" part because
they make an "improved line" of products and the purchasing
department doesn't adjust to this other manufacture's IDs...

The center for Military Intelligence schooling and operations is at
Fort Huachuca, AZ. They have a website with interesting stuff on
M.I. history in it.

Len Anderson
retired (from regular hours) electronic engineer person

In article ,
Jim Adney wrote:

On Mon, 08 Mar 2004 21:44:10 GMT Al wrote:

In article om,
"Henry Kolesnik" wrote:

After several calls to the factory I was able to find someone who had a
book
on the codes. Here's what he gave me when he figured out what number was
important.
2116 = 1uF @ 50V
2064 = 6.8uF @ 35V
2139 = 18uF @ 50V
2031 = 22 uF @ 15V
2017 = 33uF @ 10V
2004-J = 47uF @ 6V
2035 = 68uF @ 15V
2021 = 100uF @ 10V
I've measured several on two different capacitor meters and all read close
to what the factory told me. I wonder why they coded the values with
numbers that don't make any sense? Military intellligence?

The numbers, like 2116, are just sequencial numbers on a very large
table that covers many pages in a manual. The numbers make sense
when you have the manual.

Okay, but why pick an identifiction method that requires a manual?
Most other components this size, including theirs, just have the
relevant numbers printed on them.

-
-----------------------------------------------
Jim Adney
Madison, WI 53711 USA
-----------------------------------------------

OK, let me give you a few example lines from the manual:

uF Case tol. Failure Rate (%/1000hrs) DC Leakage in uA
Code % 1.0 0.1 0.01 0.001 25C 85C 125C

5.6 A 5 5001 5201 5401 5601 0.3 6 7.5
5.6 A 10 2241 2481 2721 2961 0.3 6 7.5
6.8 A 5 5002 5202 5402 5602 0.3 6 7.5
6.8 A 10 2242 2482 2722 2962 0.3 6 7.5
6.8 A 20 2243 2483 2723 2963 0.3 6 7.5

So a M38003/01-5001 is unique. I left out the dissipation factor for
simplicty.

As you can see, there is much more information in this code number than
just the capacitance value and the voltage. When a component is bought
to this specification, it will meet it. If you buy a random FF uF VV
volt capacitor, you have no clue as to what you have with respect to
leakage, reliability, dissipation factor and the like.

al

--
There's never enough time to do it right the first time.......

In article ,
Jim Adney wrote:

On Mon, 08 Mar 2004 21:44:10 GMT Al wrote:

In article om,
"Henry Kolesnik" wrote:

After several calls to the factory I was able to find someone who had a
book
on the codes. Here's what he gave me when he figured out what number was
important.
2116 = 1uF @ 50V
2064 = 6.8uF @ 35V
2139 = 18uF @ 50V
2031 = 22 uF @ 15V
2017 = 33uF @ 10V
2004-J = 47uF @ 6V
2035 = 68uF @ 15V
2021 = 100uF @ 10V
I've measured several on two different capacitor meters and all read close
to what the factory told me. I wonder why they coded the values with
numbers that don't make any sense? Military intellligence?

The numbers, like 2116, are just sequencial numbers on a very large
table that covers many pages in a manual. The numbers make sense
when you have the manual.

Okay, but why pick an identifiction method that requires a manual?
Most other components this size, including theirs, just have the
relevant numbers printed on them.

-
-----------------------------------------------
Jim Adney
Madison, WI 53711 USA
-----------------------------------------------

OK, let me give you a few example lines from the manual:

uF Case tol. Failure Rate (%/1000hrs) DC Leakage in uA
Code % 1.0 0.1 0.01 0.001 25C 85C 125C

5.6 A 5 5001 5201 5401 5601 0.3 6 7.5
5.6 A 10 2241 2481 2721 2961 0.3 6 7.5
6.8 A 5 5002 5202 5402 5602 0.3 6 7.5
6.8 A 10 2242 2482 2722 2962 0.3 6 7.5
6.8 A 20 2243 2483 2723 2963 0.3 6 7.5

So a M38003/01-5001 is unique. I left out the dissipation factor for
simplicty.

As you can see, there is much more information in this code number than
just the capacitance value and the voltage. When a component is bought
to this specification, it will meet it. If you buy a random FF uF VV
volt capacitor, you have no clue as to what you have with respect to
leakage, reliability, dissipation factor and the like.

al

--
There's never enough time to do it right the first time.......

On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 14:28:56 GMT Al wrote:

In article ,
Jim Adney wrote:

Okay, but why pick an identifiction method that requires a manual?
Most other components this size, including theirs, just have the
relevant numbers printed on them.

OK, let me give you a few example lines from the manual:

uF Case tol. Failure Rate (%/1000hrs) DC Leakage in uA
Code % 1.0 0.1 0.01 0.001 25C 85C 125C

5.6 A 5 5001 5201 5401 5601 0.3 6 7.5
5.6 A 10 2241 2481 2721 2961 0.3 6 7.5
6.8 A 5 5002 5202 5402 5602 0.3 6 7.5
6.8 A 10 2242 2482 2722 2962 0.3 6 7.5
6.8 A 20 2243 2483 2723 2963 0.3 6 7.5

So a M38003/01-5001 is unique. I left out the dissipation factor for
simplicty.

As you can see, there is much more information in this code number than
just the capacitance value and the voltage. When a component is bought
to this specification, it will meet it. If you buy a random FF uF VV
volt capacitor, you have no clue as to what you have with respect to
leakage, reliability, dissipation factor and the like.

I have a similar page here from the Sprague/Vishay catalog. In this
case it just happens to be for some caps which I picked up surplus
which are marked M39006/25-xxxx.

In this case the xxxx code pins down the tolerance and failure rate,
just as the Kemet does above (note that everything else above is the
same.) OTOH, the Sprague/Vishay caps are also labeled with their C and
V ratings, as well as the tolerance. Only the failure rate is left
unexplained. There is also an H-code for high vibration which you
might need the catalog page to interpret.

BTW, both manufacturers have a code for an M failure rate, which is
1.0% per 1000 hours. I find it hard to believe that anyone would buy
such a device, especially the military. The ones I got were the R
rate, .01% per 1000 hours. Those are the best that they offer and I'll
bet those are the only ones that ever get sold.

So I still don't think it's too much to ask that the most important
data be printed out separately.

Obviously, I don't tend to think like the military....

-
-----------------------------------------------
Jim Adney
Madison, WI 53711 USA
-----------------------------------------------

On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 14:28:56 GMT Al wrote:

In article ,
Jim Adney wrote:

Okay, but why pick an identifiction method that requires a manual?
Most other components this size, including theirs, just have the
relevant numbers printed on them.

OK, let me give you a few example lines from the manual:

uF Case tol. Failure Rate (%/1000hrs) DC Leakage in uA
Code % 1.0 0.1 0.01 0.001 25C 85C 125C

5.6 A 5 5001 5201 5401 5601 0.3 6 7.5
5.6 A 10 2241 2481 2721 2961 0.3 6 7.5
6.8 A 5 5002 5202 5402 5602 0.3 6 7.5
6.8 A 10 2242 2482 2722 2962 0.3 6 7.5
6.8 A 20 2243 2483 2723 2963 0.3 6 7.5

So a M38003/01-5001 is unique. I left out the dissipation factor for
simplicty.

As you can see, there is much more information in this code number than
just the capacitance value and the voltage. When a component is bought
to this specification, it will meet it. If you buy a random FF uF VV
volt capacitor, you have no clue as to what you have with respect to
leakage, reliability, dissipation factor and the like.

I have a similar page here from the Sprague/Vishay catalog. In this
case it just happens to be for some caps which I picked up surplus
which are marked M39006/25-xxxx.

In this case the xxxx code pins down the tolerance and failure rate,
just as the Kemet does above (note that everything else above is the
same.) OTOH, the Sprague/Vishay caps are also labeled with their C and
V ratings, as well as the tolerance. Only the failure rate is left
unexplained. There is also an H-code for high vibration which you
might need the catalog page to interpret.

BTW, both manufacturers have a code for an M failure rate, which is
1.0% per 1000 hours. I find it hard to believe that anyone would buy
such a device, especially the military. The ones I got were the R
rate, .01% per 1000 hours. Those are the best that they offer and I'll
bet those are the only ones that ever get sold.

So I still don't think it's too much to ask that the most important
data be printed out separately.

Obviously, I don't tend to think like the military....

-
-----------------------------------------------
Jim Adney
Madison, WI 53711 USA
-----------------------------------------------

Jim Adney wrote:
. . .
So I still don't think it's too much to ask that the most important
data be printed out separately.

Obviously, I don't tend to think like the military....

-
-----------------------------------------------
Jim Adney
Madison, WI 53711 USA
-----------------------------------------------

While you've got a legitimate point, you've got to realize the function
of the part number. If you're a technician servicing a piece of military
gear, you replace a 20035942 *ONLY* with a 20035942, not *ANY* other
capacitor, regardless of its value. To order a replacement, you put in a
requisition for a 20035942. Now, it's vital to you that the capacitors
in the stock bin or coming in from the supply system have 20035942
printed on them, but it's not important that the value is. The
technician can find the value in the parts list in the manual and likely
on the schematic. The stark fact is that the military supply system
wasn't created and isn't maintained for the convenience of the ham who's
working on surplus gear.

You'll actually find this is true throughout the industry, with many
ICs, for example, having only the customer's part numbers on them. Go to
a flea market anywhere around here where I live, and you'll find lots of
components with only Tektronix part numbers on them. You'll also find
lots of folks locally who can tell you what they are, at least
generically. I'm sure the same thing is true for HP and Palo Alto,
Motorola and Phoenix, and so forth.

It's not that you don't think like the military -- it's just that when
they developed their stock system they didn't take into consideration
the inconvenience it would cause you, me, and other hobbyists.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Jim Adney wrote:
. . .
So I still don't think it's too much to ask that the most important
data be printed out separately.

Obviously, I don't tend to think like the military....

-
-----------------------------------------------
Jim Adney
Madison, WI 53711 USA
-----------------------------------------------

While you've got a legitimate point, you've got to realize the function
of the part number. If you're a technician servicing a piece of military
gear, you replace a 20035942 *ONLY* with a 20035942, not *ANY* other
capacitor, regardless of its value. To order a replacement, you put in a
requisition for a 20035942. Now, it's vital to you that the capacitors
in the stock bin or coming in from the supply system have 20035942
printed on them, but it's not important that the value is. The
technician can find the value in the parts list in the manual and likely
on the schematic. The stark fact is that the military supply system
wasn't created and isn't maintained for the convenience of the ham who's
working on surplus gear.

You'll actually find this is true throughout the industry, with many
ICs, for example, having only the customer's part numbers on them. Go to
a flea market anywhere around here where I live, and you'll find lots of
components with only Tektronix part numbers on them. You'll also find
lots of folks locally who can tell you what they are, at least
generically. I'm sure the same thing is true for HP and Palo Alto,
Motorola and Phoenix, and so forth.

It's not that you don't think like the military -- it's just that when
they developed their stock system they didn't take into consideration
the inconvenience it would cause you, me, and other hobbyists.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

I was a GCA radar tech in the RCAF in the 1960s and in one of the excercises
(war games) we had to find and fix a fault so the incoming aircraft
wouldn't crash, it was zero visibility . Sometimes it was as easy as a bad
or loose tube, but some seargents had subchassis with cold solder joints,
shorted black beauty capacitors or fried resistors. Time was critcal as the
weather was closing fast and the aircraft was low on fuel. Sometimes the
excercise left us without many parts, partially functional test equpt, and
only partial manuals. To better simulate battle conditions, one end of the
hut could be on fire and CO2 smoke to hinder visibilty! A shorted .01 uF
400VDC black beauty was easliy replaced with a .01 uF 600VDC or .02 a fried
22K 1/2 watt with a 22K 2 watt or something close. Color codes were quite
useful in many cases. The objective was to save the aircraft using limited
resources. Today I don't think we see component level repair in the field
but in battle anything may be necessary for survival. I'd much rather have
something with component values rather than a bunch of codes that required
decifering. I still contend this is a result of "military intelligence."
And the codes make it tough on us hobbyists but we not under a critical time
crunch and with the Internet it's usually a piece of cake.
73
Hank WD5JFR
"Roy Lewallen" wrote in message
...
Jim Adney wrote:
. . .
So I still don't think it's too much to ask that the most important
data be printed out separately.

Obviously, I don't tend to think like the military....

-
-----------------------------------------------
Jim Adney
Madison, WI 53711 USA
-----------------------------------------------

While you've got a legitimate point, you've got to realize the function
of the part number. If you're a technician servicing a piece of military
gear, you replace a 20035942 *ONLY* with a 20035942, not *ANY* other
capacitor, regardless of its value. To order a replacement, you put in a
requisition for a 20035942. Now, it's vital to you that the capacitors
in the stock bin or coming in from the supply system have 20035942
printed on them, but it's not important that the value is. The
technician can find the value in the parts list in the manual and likely
on the schematic. The stark fact is that the military supply system
wasn't created and isn't maintained for the convenience of the ham who's
working on surplus gear.

You'll actually find this is true throughout the industry, with many
ICs, for example, having only the customer's part numbers on them. Go to
a flea market anywhere around here where I live, and you'll find lots of
components with only Tektronix part numbers on them. You'll also find
lots of folks locally who can tell you what they are, at least
generically. I'm sure the same thing is true for HP and Palo Alto,
Motorola and Phoenix, and so forth.

It's not that you don't think like the military -- it's just that when
they developed their stock system they didn't take into consideration
the inconvenience it would cause you, me, and other hobbyists.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

I was a GCA radar tech in the RCAF in the 1960s and in one of the excercises
(war games) we had to find and fix a fault so the incoming aircraft
wouldn't crash, it was zero visibility . Sometimes it was as easy as a bad
or loose tube, but some seargents had subchassis with cold solder joints,
shorted black beauty capacitors or fried resistors. Time was critcal as the
weather was closing fast and the aircraft was low on fuel. Sometimes the
excercise left us without many parts, partially functional test equpt, and
only partial manuals. To better simulate battle conditions, one end of the
hut could be on fire and CO2 smoke to hinder visibilty! A shorted .01 uF
400VDC black beauty was easliy replaced with a .01 uF 600VDC or .02 a fried
22K 1/2 watt with a 22K 2 watt or something close. Color codes were quite
useful in many cases. The objective was to save the aircraft using limited
resources. Today I don't think we see component level repair in the field
but in battle anything may be necessary for survival. I'd much rather have
something with component values rather than a bunch of codes that required
decifering. I still contend this is a result of "military intelligence."
And the codes make it tough on us hobbyists but we not under a critical time
crunch and with the Internet it's usually a piece of cake.
73
Hank WD5JFR
"Roy Lewallen" wrote in message
...
Jim Adney wrote:
. . .
So I still don't think it's too much to ask that the most important
data be printed out separately.

Obviously, I don't tend to think like the military....

-
-----------------------------------------------
Jim Adney
Madison, WI 53711 USA
-----------------------------------------------

While you've got a legitimate point, you've got to realize the function
of the part number. If you're a technician servicing a piece of military
gear, you replace a 20035942 *ONLY* with a 20035942, not *ANY* other
capacitor, regardless of its value. To order a replacement, you put in a
requisition for a 20035942. Now, it's vital to you that the capacitors
in the stock bin or coming in from the supply system have 20035942
printed on them, but it's not important that the value is. The
technician can find the value in the parts list in the manual and likely
on the schematic. The stark fact is that the military supply system
wasn't created and isn't maintained for the convenience of the ham who's
working on surplus gear.

You'll actually find this is true throughout the industry, with many
ICs, for example, having only the customer's part numbers on them. Go to
a flea market anywhere around here where I live, and you'll find lots of
components with only Tektronix part numbers on them. You'll also find
lots of folks locally who can tell you what they are, at least
generically. I'm sure the same thing is true for HP and Palo Alto,
Motorola and Phoenix, and so forth.

It's not that you don't think like the military -- it's just that when
they developed their stock system they didn't take into consideration
the inconvenience it would cause you, me, and other hobbyists.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

In article om,
"Henry Kolesnik" wrote:

I was a GCA radar tech in the RCAF in the 1960s and in one of the excercises
(war games) we had to find and fix a fault so the incoming aircraft
wouldn't crash, it was zero visibility . Sometimes it was as easy as a bad
or loose tube, but some seargents had subchassis with cold solder joints,
shorted black beauty capacitors or fried resistors. Time was critcal as the
weather was closing fast and the aircraft was low on fuel. Sometimes the
excercise left us without many parts, partially functional test equpt, and
only partial manuals. To better simulate battle conditions, one end of the
hut could be on fire and CO2 smoke to hinder visibilty! A shorted .01 uF
400VDC black beauty was easliy replaced with a .01 uF 600VDC or .02 a fried
22K 1/2 watt with a 22K 2 watt or something close. Color codes were quite
useful in many cases. The objective was to save the aircraft using limited
resources. Today I don't think we see component level repair in the field
but in battle anything may be necessary for survival. I'd much rather have
something with component values rather than a bunch of codes that required
decifering. I still contend this is a result of "military intelligence."
And the codes make it tough on us hobbyists but we not under a critical time
crunch and with the Internet it's usually a piece of cake.

In the sixties that was possible. But now you can't really fly by the
seat of your pants. Repair is by replacing LRUs (Least Replaceable
Units). Even if the LRU makes it back to the depot for failure
confirmation, it may not be repairable. 6, 8 or 12 layer PCBs cannot be
readily repaired. And would you trust one that was repaired if it did
not go through a burn-in cycle afterward? Would you depend on a
fail-safe circuit to prevent a nuclear launch if it had a component
replaced in it that was "close enough?" Maybe in your cars brake system,
but not on my missile!

Al

--
There's never enough time to do it right the first time.......