Really basic resistance question, but not sure.

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Chantry09
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Resistance
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the notation used for expressing resistance values, specifically the interpretation of "1k7" ohms and its equivalence to 1700 ohms. Participants explore the notation's usage in various contexts, including schematics and specifications, and raise questions about its clarity and standardization.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that "1k7" is equivalent to 1700 ohms, while others confirm this equivalence.
  • There is a discussion about the notation itself, with some participants expressing confusion and labeling it as nonsensical.
  • Some participants mention that the notation is commonly seen in European schematics and spec sheets, suggesting it is a standard practice in certain contexts.
  • One participant introduces the idea that "1r7" represents 1.7 ohms, indicating a potential standardization in notation to avoid confusion between decimal and comma usage in different regions.
  • There is a suggestion that the notation could also apply to potentiometers, with examples provided for clarity.
  • Participants discuss the meaning of the letters used in the notation, with "k" representing kilo (1000) and "r" indicating ohms, while questioning the consistency of these designations across different units.
  • Some participants argue that the original meaning of numerical prefixes fades with frequent use, while others disagree, asserting that the meaning remains integral to calculations.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a mix of agreement and disagreement regarding the clarity and utility of the notation. While some confirm the equivalence of "1k7" to 1700 ohms, others question the notation's sensibility and standardization. The discussion remains unresolved on the broader implications of using such notation in practice.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved questions regarding the consistency of notation across different contexts and the potential for confusion among users unfamiliar with the conventions. The discussion highlights the variability in notation usage across regions and applications.

Chantry09
Messages
59
Reaction score
0
Hey guys,

I feel like an idiot asking this, but if the question is talking about 1k7 ohms of resistance, am i to believe that is the same as 1700 ohms?

Thanks ^^

James
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Spadez said:
Hey guys,

I feel like an idiot asking this, but if the question is talking about 1k7 ohms of resistance, am i to believe that is the same as 1700 ohms?

Thanks ^^

James

Yes.

CS
 
What is this notation?
 
Shooting star said:
What is this notation?

I think its crap. Doesn't really make sense to me, but I've seen it on spec sheets before (then they put = 1700 ohms beside it in parenthesis).

CS
 
stewartcs said:
I think its crap. Doesn't really make sense to me, but I've seen it on spec sheets before (then they put = 1700 ohms beside it in parenthesis).

CS

From what you say, I presume it's done by engineers?
 
Dunno if it's crap, but you do see it in various places, so it's good to be familiar with it.

1k7 = 1.7k Ohms

1r7 = 1.7 Ohms
 
Just one more question. You both say this is seen in various places, like spec sheets. Where else?
 
berkeman said:
1r7 = 1.7 Ohms

That's a new one I haven't seen.

I suppose it may be to standardize the use of a comma (in Europe and other places) and a decimal in the US.

i.e. 1,7KOhms compared to 1.7KOhms.
 
Shooting star said:
Just one more question. You both say this is seen in various places, like spec sheets. Where else?

It's common on European schematics. Either in application notes, or in customer schematics (in my work, I help out with customer design reviews fairly often, so I see a lot of schematics from all over the world).

Also, you'll sometimes see medium-size power resistors labeled with the 2R2 type of notation, if the value is written on the resistor (as opposed to using colored bands).
 
  • #10
Isn't it also possible for that notation to represent a potentiometer? I could swear that I've built circuits using 4k7 pots.
 
  • #11
ranger said:
Isn't it also possible for that notation to represent a potentiometer? I could swear that I've built circuits using 4k7 pots.

And that would mean...?
 
  • #12
I've seen the notation on the resistors themselves before.
 
  • #13
ranger said:
Isn't it also possible for that notation to represent a potentiometer? I could swear that I've built circuits using 4k7 pots.

Which simply means a potentiometer with a maximum resistance of 4k7, i.e. 4700 Ohms

This notation is very common and often very conventient; especially when you have small letters on a component since you do not have to use a point since e.g. 1.7k can easily be misstaken for 17k. 1k7 and 17k look very different.
 
  • #14
> 1k7 = 1.7k Ohms

> 1r7 = 1.7 Ohms


The k I've understood, but what is the 'r'? What would be 720 in this notation? (I don't know what they use for 100. But, suppose they use h, then it'll be 7h2, right)
 
  • #15
Shooting star said:
> 1k7 = 1.7k Ohms

> 1r7 = 1.7 Ohms


The k I've understood, but what is the 'r'? What would be 720 in this notation? (I don't know what they use for 100. But, suppose they use h, then it'll be 7h2, right)

I believe the R is just to show it is a resistor.
 
  • #16
berkeman said:
I believe the R is just to show it is a resistor.

And the 'k'?
 
  • #17
Shooting star said:
And the 'k'?

Kilo = 1000

Since there is no prefix for unity, they apparently picked the "R" for the resistor decimal point designator.

You will also see 47R for 47 Ohms, BTW.
 
  • #18
The electronics use k with the meaning Kohm, not k as 1000x. It's just a coincidence. They never use h or d to mean x100 or x10.
Resistors of several kilo ohm to a hundred kohm are very common, so they just say 2.2 k or 2k2, 100k etc.
They also use r as ohm, just because in electronic circuit schematics, resistors are often noted as R1, R2 etc...
 
  • #19
pixel01 said:
The electronics use k with the meaning Kohm, not k as 1000x. It's just a coincidence.

Why do you think it's a coincidence that the prefix k is used for kOhm? How many Ohms in a kOhm?
 
  • #20
berkeman said:
Why do you think it's a coincidence that the prefix k is used for kOhm? How many Ohms in a kOhm?

If not, they should use k, h, d as well. But i have never heard. I use to spend some time working with electronics circuits , electronics devices and the like, and we used the word k so often that we never thought it's x1000 (in fact it is), I just thought kohm is a unit which is used as often as ohm (even more).
 
  • #21
Refer to my question in post #5. It's a wonder I'm writing this and you are reading this.

(Oops, esteemed berkeman (a mentor in engineering) is on this thread! Didn't notice... :biggrin:)
 
  • #22
pixel01 said:
If not, they should use k, h, d as well. But i have never heard. I use to spend some time working with electronics circuits , electronics devices and the like, and we used the word k so often that we never thought it's x1000 (in fact it is), I just thought kohm is a unit which is used as often as ohm (even more).

Nope, definitely not a coincidence. In electronics, we use MKS and the associated prefixes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SI_prefix

Just as km = 1000m, kOhm = 1000 Ohms. Same deal.

It is also true that in engineering, we tend to stick with the prefixes that are powers of 3:

M = 10^6
k = 10^3
m =10^-3
\mu = 10^-6
etc.

Like, if you turn on "Engineering Notation" on an HP calculator, you get scientific notation, but snapped to the nearest 3-power.
 
  • #23
OK, now I feel a bit reassured with the explanations.:approve:
 
  • #24
Sure that K, M are x10e3 and x10e6. But if you use that unit very often, the original meaning fades away. It's just like when you read some capacitors: muy, n, p. No one thought they are of one millionth or one billionth of a farad.
 
  • #25
pixel01 said:
Sure that K, M are x10e3 and x10e6. But if you use that unit very often, the original meaning fades away. It's just like when you read some capacitors: muy, n, p. No one thought they are of one millionth or one billionth of a farad.

I disagree. We do math with those numbers all the time, often in our head. How can you calculate the LPF pole from R and C numbers, and not do the math on the prefixes too? The meaning of numerical prefixes never fades away -- they are part of the number itself.
 
  • #26
berkeman said:
I disagree. We do math with those numbers all the time, often in our head. How can you calculate the LPF pole from R and C numbers, and not do the math on the prefixes too? The meaning of numerical prefixes never fades away -- they are part of the number itself.

I say in the view of an electrician, most of them also think so. I should say an ordinary electrician will never see a capacitor of 1 farad. The calculattions they often have to deal with also in p, n or muy.
Of course, we all know the meaning of K, M, mm, muy n , p etc..
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 105 ·
4
Replies
105
Views
13K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
6K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
5K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
7K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
8K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K