The schematic shows the horizontal sync coupled to a
gate via a "2200 mf"
non-polarized cap. I don't know that I have any disc or ceramic caps that
IO think we can instantly eliminat 'mf' == millifarad (which is what it
should be!), since that's then 2.2F, which is rediculously large
Of course. I never thought it was millifarad.
Well, it's what it _should_ be. Mind you, millifarad is not a
commonly-used unit for some unknown reason (I routinely see capacitors
marked 100000uF rather than 100mF or even 0.1F), although i have seen it
used in, I think, an HP manual
Incidentally, I saw a 2.7kF (no, not a typo!) low-voltage electrolytic in
a catalogue recently. And to think that when I was at school the physics
'teacher' told us that a 1F capacitor would be 'larger than this room'
and that we'd never seen on. About a week later I dropped a square plasic
object on his deck -- a 1F capacitor that I'd bought from Farnell or
somewhere.
2200nF
(==2.2uF) would be possible, but it's a very odd way to write it.
Yes. This was also written in the 1970s, so I'm trying historical
interpretation as well as what's obviously written.
nF was common in Europe in the 70's, much less common in the States, I think.
2200pF (==2.2nF) is quite possible, for some
reason some people
(particularly in the States) don't like the unit 'nF'. That would also
seem to be a suitable value for coupling a 15kHz signal.
2200pF does sound reasonable. I am one of those who never grew up
using nF, so I don't tend to use it (I learned milli-microfarad from
my father for pF, he, in turn, was a Ham in the 1950s).
Err, millimicrofarad = nanofarad. The picofarad is the micromicrofarad.
I've seen uuF (where the 'u' is actually $\mu$) in old manuals.
Am I the only person to remember the millimicron as an equivalent for nm
when talking about optical wavelengths, etc?
-tony