What kind of capacitor is this in the image? [on hold]How to tell if a printed capacitance is the actual value or a capacitance code?Does anybody know what kind of component this is?Identifying this resistor/capacitorWhat is this inductor-like part?What does a capacitor do in a tesla coil?What kind of capacitor is this? How to read its value code?What is the meaning / significance of this Capacitor Symbol?How to do the wiring of this capacitorWhat kind / type / model relay is this?What connector did this IBM Model M keyboard have?What type of terminal is this
Why was the Spitfire's elliptical wing almost uncopied by other aircraft of World War 2?
Can SQL Server create collisions in system generated constraint names?
Mistake in years of experience in resume?
Is there a way to generate a list of distinct numbers such that no two subsets ever have an equal sum?
What happens to Mjolnir (Thor's hammer) at the end of Endgame?
What are the characteristics of a typeless programming language?
Checks user level and limit the data before saving it to mongoDB
Map of water taps to fill bottles
I preordered a game on my Xbox while on the home screen of my friend's account. Which of us owns the game?
Was there a shared-world project before "Thieves World"?
What is the optimal strategy for the Dictionary Game?
Does a large simulator bay have standard public address announcements?
Why must Chinese maps be obfuscated?
Critique of timeline aesthetic
How do I deal with a coworker that keeps asking to make small superficial changes to a report, and it is seriously triggering my anxiety?
Can I criticise the more senior developers around me for not writing clean code?
What are the steps to solving this definite integral?
Is it idiomatic to construct against `this`
Why does nature favour the Laplacian?
Is the claim "Employers won't employ people with no 'social media presence'" realistic?
Why does Mind Blank stop the Feeblemind spell?
What is causing the white spot to appear in some of my pictures
Can we say “you can pay when the order gets ready”?
Aliens crash on Earth and go into stasis to wait for technology to fix their ship
What kind of capacitor is this in the image? [on hold]
How to tell if a printed capacitance is the actual value or a capacitance code?Does anybody know what kind of component this is?Identifying this resistor/capacitorWhat is this inductor-like part?What does a capacitor do in a tesla coil?What kind of capacitor is this? How to read its value code?What is the meaning / significance of this Capacitor Symbol?How to do the wiring of this capacitorWhat kind / type / model relay is this?What connector did this IBM Model M keyboard have?What type of terminal is this
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
$begingroup$
The power supply of my model railway got broken.
I think the problem is the capacitor shown in the image. So does somebody know which kind of capacitor this is?
capacitor identification
edited Apr 22 at 17:28
SamGibson
11.8k41739
asked Apr 22 at 15:50
tobiiastobiias
141
New contributor
tobiias is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
put on hold as off-topic by Nick Alexeev♦ Apr 22 at 23:48
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "Questions on the repair of consumer electronics, appliances, or other devices must involve specific troubleshooting steps and demonstrate a good understanding of the underlying design of the device being repaired. See also: Is asking on how to fix a faulty circuit on topic?" – Nick Alexeev
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The power supply of my model railway got broken.
I think the problem is the capacitor shown in the image. So does somebody know which kind of capacitor this is?
capacitor identification
edited Apr 22 at 17:28
SamGibson
11.8k41739
asked Apr 22 at 15:50
tobiiastobiias
141
New contributor
tobiias is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
put on hold as off-topic by Nick Alexeev♦ Apr 22 at 23:48
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "Questions on the repair of consumer electronics, appliances, or other devices must involve specific troubleshooting steps and demonstrate a good understanding of the underlying design of the device being repaired. See also: Is asking on how to fix a faulty circuit on topic?" – Nick Alexeev
6
$begingroup$
Looks like a 100 µF 35V electrolytic capacitor.
$endgroup$
– evildemonic
Apr 22 at 15:55
1
$begingroup$
Measure the diameter (and height if there is a height restriction) with calipers. It tells you the specific package required for the replacement otherwise it may not fit onto the PCB.
$endgroup$
– Toor
Apr 22 at 17:48
1
$begingroup$
Looks to me as though whatever is to the left of that capacitor is possibly the real cause of the problem. The cap itself looks fine other than a bit of gunk on the side from that other thing.
$endgroup$
– brhans
Apr 22 at 18:07
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The power supply of my model railway got broken.
I think the problem is the capacitor shown in the image. So does somebody know which kind of capacitor this is?
capacitor identification
edited Apr 22 at 17:28
SamGibson
11.8k41739
asked Apr 22 at 15:50
tobiiastobiias
141
New contributor
tobiias is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
The power supply of my model railway got broken.
I think the problem is the capacitor shown in the image. So does somebody know which kind of capacitor this is?
capacitor identification
capacitor identification
edited Apr 22 at 17:28
SamGibson
11.8k41739
asked Apr 22 at 15:50
tobiiastobiias
141
New contributor
tobiias is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited Apr 22 at 17:28
SamGibson
11.8k41739
asked Apr 22 at 15:50
tobiiastobiias
141
New contributor
tobiias is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited Apr 22 at 17:28
SamGibson
11.8k41739
edited Apr 22 at 17:28
SamGibson
11.8k41739
edited Apr 22 at 17:28
SamGibson
11.8k41739
11.8k41739
asked Apr 22 at 15:50
tobiiastobiias
141
New contributor
tobiias is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked Apr 22 at 15:50
tobiiastobiias
141
asked Apr 22 at 15:50
tobiiastobiias
141
141
New contributor
tobiias is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
tobiias is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
tobiias is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
put on hold as off-topic by Nick Alexeev♦ Apr 22 at 23:48
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "Questions on the repair of consumer electronics, appliances, or other devices must involve specific troubleshooting steps and demonstrate a good understanding of the underlying design of the device being repaired. See also: Is asking on how to fix a faulty circuit on topic?" – Nick Alexeev
put on hold as off-topic by Nick Alexeev♦ Apr 22 at 23:48
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "Questions on the repair of consumer electronics, appliances, or other devices must involve specific troubleshooting steps and demonstrate a good understanding of the underlying design of the device being repaired. See also: Is asking on how to fix a faulty circuit on topic?" – Nick Alexeev
6
$begingroup$
Looks like a 100 µF 35V electrolytic capacitor.
$endgroup$
– evildemonic
Apr 22 at 15:55
1
$begingroup$
Measure the diameter (and height if there is a height restriction) with calipers. It tells you the specific package required for the replacement otherwise it may not fit onto the PCB.
$endgroup$
– Toor
Apr 22 at 17:48
1
$begingroup$
Looks to me as though whatever is to the left of that capacitor is possibly the real cause of the problem. The cap itself looks fine other than a bit of gunk on the side from that other thing.
$endgroup$
– brhans
Apr 22 at 18:07
add a comment |
6
$begingroup$
Looks like a 100 µF 35V electrolytic capacitor.
$endgroup$
– evildemonic
Apr 22 at 15:55
1
$begingroup$
Measure the diameter (and height if there is a height restriction) with calipers. It tells you the specific package required for the replacement otherwise it may not fit onto the PCB.
$endgroup$
– Toor
Apr 22 at 17:48
1
$begingroup$
Looks to me as though whatever is to the left of that capacitor is possibly the real cause of the problem. The cap itself looks fine other than a bit of gunk on the side from that other thing.
$endgroup$
– brhans
Apr 22 at 18:07
6
6
$begingroup$
Looks like a 100 µF 35V electrolytic capacitor.
$endgroup$
– evildemonic
Apr 22 at 15:55
$begingroup$
Looks like a 100 µF 35V electrolytic capacitor.
$endgroup$
– evildemonic
Apr 22 at 15:55
1
1
$begingroup$
Measure the diameter (and height if there is a height restriction) with calipers. It tells you the specific package required for the replacement otherwise it may not fit onto the PCB.
$endgroup$
– Toor
Apr 22 at 17:48
$begingroup$
Measure the diameter (and height if there is a height restriction) with calipers. It tells you the specific package required for the replacement otherwise it may not fit onto the PCB.
$endgroup$
– Toor
Apr 22 at 17:48
1
1
$begingroup$
Looks to me as though whatever is to the left of that capacitor is possibly the real cause of the problem. The cap itself looks fine other than a bit of gunk on the side from that other thing.
$endgroup$
– brhans
Apr 22 at 18:07
$begingroup$
Looks to me as though whatever is to the left of that capacitor is possibly the real cause of the problem. The cap itself looks fine other than a bit of gunk on the side from that other thing.
$endgroup$
– brhans
Apr 22 at 18:07
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
It's a 100uF/35V aluminum electrolytic capacitor. Aluminum electrolytic capacitors do not, in my experience, use the 3-digit system. From this datasheet:
I see what appears to be flux on the PCB, but often caps will bulge up if they are dying. If it has actually leaked from the cap, then it should be replaced.
answered Apr 22 at 16:34
Spehro PefhanySpehro Pefhany
215k5165440
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
You are right about the 3 digit capacitance code. A second look at the datasheet linked by Enginerd shows that the three digit code applies to the part number, not the marking.
$endgroup$
– JRE
Apr 22 at 16:39
add a comment |
$begingroup$
That is an aluminum electrolytic capacitor.
100 microfarad, rated for 35V.
I'm not sure there's anything wrong with it, though. It has score marks across the top. If it had gone bad, then it would have burst along those lines.
It looks like there's some glue on one side, but that's about it.
The trace to the left of it looks burned.
answered Apr 22 at 16:01
JREJRE
23.9k64379
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The capacitance value I state is based on the assumption that the "100" marked on the capacitor is a three digit code as apposed to the literal capacitance of the capacitor. This may not be the case, I am leaving my "answer" in the hope that someone can clear this up. -Edit
Second Edit. I did more digging and it looks like indeed this cap is 100uF, and what really sealed it for me is as Sphero Pefhany pointed out, a 10uF rating would only need a two digit marking as would any value up too 99uF. So it must be 100uF -Edit
That is a surface mount aluminum electrolytic capacitor It is rated for 35V with a capacity of 10.0 uF.
The "100" is a code that translates as first digit followed by a second digit finished by a power of ten digit. The scale starts at uF, for example to get 47uF the code is: 470, or if you have a code of 331 that's 33 * 10^1 uF or 330uF capacitance.
A chart with capacitor codes can be found in this document. link
answered Apr 22 at 16:09
Clipboard_Waving_EnginerdClipboard_Waving_Enginerd
16218
$endgroup$
5
$begingroup$
No, it is 100uF. In fact the photo in your link shows how 10uF capacitors are marked, which is different from the part number.
$endgroup$
– Spehro Pefhany
Apr 22 at 16:37
3
$begingroup$
I Agree with Sphero Pefhany.
$endgroup$
– MikeTeX
Apr 22 at 16:54
$begingroup$
@SpehroPefhany You are right that the chart (STANDARD VALUES AND CASE SIZES) data sheet I posted is explicitly for a part number breakdown and not necessary related to the actual markings on the cap. However I have seen this convention used for many capacitors with this type of form factor which is how my answer came about. I can't cite any actual standard nor can I find a source that states when the actual value or an abbreviated value is used. I'll update my answer to highlight this ambiguity.
$endgroup$
– Clipboard_Waving_Enginerd
Apr 22 at 17:32
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
It's a 100uF/35V aluminum electrolytic capacitor. Aluminum electrolytic capacitors do not, in my experience, use the 3-digit system. From this datasheet:
I see what appears to be flux on the PCB, but often caps will bulge up if they are dying. If it has actually leaked from the cap, then it should be replaced.
answered Apr 22 at 16:34
Spehro PefhanySpehro Pefhany
215k5165440
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
You are right about the 3 digit capacitance code. A second look at the datasheet linked by Enginerd shows that the three digit code applies to the part number, not the marking.
$endgroup$
– JRE
Apr 22 at 16:39
add a comment |
$begingroup$
It's a 100uF/35V aluminum electrolytic capacitor. Aluminum electrolytic capacitors do not, in my experience, use the 3-digit system. From this datasheet:
I see what appears to be flux on the PCB, but often caps will bulge up if they are dying. If it has actually leaked from the cap, then it should be replaced.
answered Apr 22 at 16:34
Spehro PefhanySpehro Pefhany
215k5165440
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
You are right about the 3 digit capacitance code. A second look at the datasheet linked by Enginerd shows that the three digit code applies to the part number, not the marking.
$endgroup$
– JRE
Apr 22 at 16:39
add a comment |
$begingroup$
It's a 100uF/35V aluminum electrolytic capacitor. Aluminum electrolytic capacitors do not, in my experience, use the 3-digit system. From this datasheet:
I see what appears to be flux on the PCB, but often caps will bulge up if they are dying. If it has actually leaked from the cap, then it should be replaced.
answered Apr 22 at 16:34
Spehro PefhanySpehro Pefhany
215k5165440
$endgroup$
It's a 100uF/35V aluminum electrolytic capacitor. Aluminum electrolytic capacitors do not, in my experience, use the 3-digit system. From this datasheet:
I see what appears to be flux on the PCB, but often caps will bulge up if they are dying. If it has actually leaked from the cap, then it should be replaced.
answered Apr 22 at 16:34
Spehro PefhanySpehro Pefhany
215k5165440
edited Apr 22 at 16:52
answered Apr 22 at 16:34
Spehro PefhanySpehro Pefhany
215k5165440
answered Apr 22 at 16:34
Spehro PefhanySpehro Pefhany
215k5165440
answered Apr 22 at 16:34
Spehro PefhanySpehro Pefhany
215k5165440
215k5165440
2
$begingroup$
You are right about the 3 digit capacitance code. A second look at the datasheet linked by Enginerd shows that the three digit code applies to the part number, not the marking.
$endgroup$
– JRE
Apr 22 at 16:39
add a comment |
2
$begingroup$
You are right about the 3 digit capacitance code. A second look at the datasheet linked by Enginerd shows that the three digit code applies to the part number, not the marking.
$endgroup$
– JRE
Apr 22 at 16:39
2
2
$begingroup$
You are right about the 3 digit capacitance code. A second look at the datasheet linked by Enginerd shows that the three digit code applies to the part number, not the marking.
$endgroup$
– JRE
Apr 22 at 16:39
$begingroup$
You are right about the 3 digit capacitance code. A second look at the datasheet linked by Enginerd shows that the three digit code applies to the part number, not the marking.
$endgroup$
– JRE
Apr 22 at 16:39
add a comment |
$begingroup$
That is an aluminum electrolytic capacitor.
100 microfarad, rated for 35V.
I'm not sure there's anything wrong with it, though. It has score marks across the top. If it had gone bad, then it would have burst along those lines.
It looks like there's some glue on one side, but that's about it.
The trace to the left of it looks burned.
answered Apr 22 at 16:01
JREJRE
23.9k64379
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
That is an aluminum electrolytic capacitor.
100 microfarad, rated for 35V.
I'm not sure there's anything wrong with it, though. It has score marks across the top. If it had gone bad, then it would have burst along those lines.
It looks like there's some glue on one side, but that's about it.
The trace to the left of it looks burned.
answered Apr 22 at 16:01
JREJRE
23.9k64379
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
That is an aluminum electrolytic capacitor.
100 microfarad, rated for 35V.
I'm not sure there's anything wrong with it, though. It has score marks across the top. If it had gone bad, then it would have burst along those lines.
It looks like there's some glue on one side, but that's about it.
The trace to the left of it looks burned.
answered Apr 22 at 16:01
JREJRE
23.9k64379
$endgroup$
That is an aluminum electrolytic capacitor.
100 microfarad, rated for 35V.
I'm not sure there's anything wrong with it, though. It has score marks across the top. If it had gone bad, then it would have burst along those lines.
It looks like there's some glue on one side, but that's about it.
The trace to the left of it looks burned.
answered Apr 22 at 16:01
JREJRE
23.9k64379
edited Apr 22 at 16:37
answered Apr 22 at 16:01
JREJRE
23.9k64379
answered Apr 22 at 16:01
JREJRE
23.9k64379
answered Apr 22 at 16:01
JREJRE
23.9k64379
23.9k64379
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The capacitance value I state is based on the assumption that the "100" marked on the capacitor is a three digit code as apposed to the literal capacitance of the capacitor. This may not be the case, I am leaving my "answer" in the hope that someone can clear this up. -Edit
Second Edit. I did more digging and it looks like indeed this cap is 100uF, and what really sealed it for me is as Sphero Pefhany pointed out, a 10uF rating would only need a two digit marking as would any value up too 99uF. So it must be 100uF -Edit
That is a surface mount aluminum electrolytic capacitor It is rated for 35V with a capacity of 10.0 uF.
The "100" is a code that translates as first digit followed by a second digit finished by a power of ten digit. The scale starts at uF, for example to get 47uF the code is: 470, or if you have a code of 331 that's 33 * 10^1 uF or 330uF capacitance.
A chart with capacitor codes can be found in this document. link
answered Apr 22 at 16:09
Clipboard_Waving_EnginerdClipboard_Waving_Enginerd
16218
$endgroup$
5
$begingroup$
No, it is 100uF. In fact the photo in your link shows how 10uF capacitors are marked, which is different from the part number.
$endgroup$
– Spehro Pefhany
Apr 22 at 16:37
3
$begingroup$
I Agree with Sphero Pefhany.
$endgroup$
– MikeTeX
Apr 22 at 16:54
$begingroup$
@SpehroPefhany You are right that the chart (STANDARD VALUES AND CASE SIZES) data sheet I posted is explicitly for a part number breakdown and not necessary related to the actual markings on the cap. However I have seen this convention used for many capacitors with this type of form factor which is how my answer came about. I can't cite any actual standard nor can I find a source that states when the actual value or an abbreviated value is used. I'll update my answer to highlight this ambiguity.
$endgroup$
– Clipboard_Waving_Enginerd
Apr 22 at 17:32
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The capacitance value I state is based on the assumption that the "100" marked on the capacitor is a three digit code as apposed to the literal capacitance of the capacitor. This may not be the case, I am leaving my "answer" in the hope that someone can clear this up. -Edit
Second Edit. I did more digging and it looks like indeed this cap is 100uF, and what really sealed it for me is as Sphero Pefhany pointed out, a 10uF rating would only need a two digit marking as would any value up too 99uF. So it must be 100uF -Edit
That is a surface mount aluminum electrolytic capacitor It is rated for 35V with a capacity of 10.0 uF.
The "100" is a code that translates as first digit followed by a second digit finished by a power of ten digit. The scale starts at uF, for example to get 47uF the code is: 470, or if you have a code of 331 that's 33 * 10^1 uF or 330uF capacitance.
A chart with capacitor codes can be found in this document. link
answered Apr 22 at 16:09
Clipboard_Waving_EnginerdClipboard_Waving_Enginerd
16218
$endgroup$
5
$begingroup$
No, it is 100uF. In fact the photo in your link shows how 10uF capacitors are marked, which is different from the part number.
$endgroup$
– Spehro Pefhany
Apr 22 at 16:37
3
$begingroup$
I Agree with Sphero Pefhany.
$endgroup$
– MikeTeX
Apr 22 at 16:54
$begingroup$
@SpehroPefhany You are right that the chart (STANDARD VALUES AND CASE SIZES) data sheet I posted is explicitly for a part number breakdown and not necessary related to the actual markings on the cap. However I have seen this convention used for many capacitors with this type of form factor which is how my answer came about. I can't cite any actual standard nor can I find a source that states when the actual value or an abbreviated value is used. I'll update my answer to highlight this ambiguity.
$endgroup$
– Clipboard_Waving_Enginerd
Apr 22 at 17:32
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The capacitance value I state is based on the assumption that the "100" marked on the capacitor is a three digit code as apposed to the literal capacitance of the capacitor. This may not be the case, I am leaving my "answer" in the hope that someone can clear this up. -Edit
Second Edit. I did more digging and it looks like indeed this cap is 100uF, and what really sealed it for me is as Sphero Pefhany pointed out, a 10uF rating would only need a two digit marking as would any value up too 99uF. So it must be 100uF -Edit
That is a surface mount aluminum electrolytic capacitor It is rated for 35V with a capacity of 10.0 uF.
The "100" is a code that translates as first digit followed by a second digit finished by a power of ten digit. The scale starts at uF, for example to get 47uF the code is: 470, or if you have a code of 331 that's 33 * 10^1 uF or 330uF capacitance.
A chart with capacitor codes can be found in this document. link
answered Apr 22 at 16:09
Clipboard_Waving_EnginerdClipboard_Waving_Enginerd
16218
$endgroup$
The capacitance value I state is based on the assumption that the "100" marked on the capacitor is a three digit code as apposed to the literal capacitance of the capacitor. This may not be the case, I am leaving my "answer" in the hope that someone can clear this up. -Edit
Second Edit. I did more digging and it looks like indeed this cap is 100uF, and what really sealed it for me is as Sphero Pefhany pointed out, a 10uF rating would only need a two digit marking as would any value up too 99uF. So it must be 100uF -Edit
That is a surface mount aluminum electrolytic capacitor It is rated for 35V with a capacity of 10.0 uF.
The "100" is a code that translates as first digit followed by a second digit finished by a power of ten digit. The scale starts at uF, for example to get 47uF the code is: 470, or if you have a code of 331 that's 33 * 10^1 uF or 330uF capacitance.
A chart with capacitor codes can be found in this document. link
answered Apr 22 at 16:09
Clipboard_Waving_EnginerdClipboard_Waving_Enginerd
16218
edited Apr 22 at 18:12
answered Apr 22 at 16:09
Clipboard_Waving_EnginerdClipboard_Waving_Enginerd
16218
answered Apr 22 at 16:09
Clipboard_Waving_EnginerdClipboard_Waving_Enginerd
16218
answered Apr 22 at 16:09
Clipboard_Waving_EnginerdClipboard_Waving_Enginerd
16218
16218
5
$begingroup$
No, it is 100uF. In fact the photo in your link shows how 10uF capacitors are marked, which is different from the part number.
$endgroup$
– Spehro Pefhany
Apr 22 at 16:37
3
$begingroup$
I Agree with Sphero Pefhany.
$endgroup$
– MikeTeX
Apr 22 at 16:54
$begingroup$
@SpehroPefhany You are right that the chart (STANDARD VALUES AND CASE SIZES) data sheet I posted is explicitly for a part number breakdown and not necessary related to the actual markings on the cap. However I have seen this convention used for many capacitors with this type of form factor which is how my answer came about. I can't cite any actual standard nor can I find a source that states when the actual value or an abbreviated value is used. I'll update my answer to highlight this ambiguity.
$endgroup$
– Clipboard_Waving_Enginerd
Apr 22 at 17:32
add a comment |
5
$begingroup$
No, it is 100uF. In fact the photo in your link shows how 10uF capacitors are marked, which is different from the part number.
$endgroup$
– Spehro Pefhany
Apr 22 at 16:37
3
$begingroup$
I Agree with Sphero Pefhany.
$endgroup$
– MikeTeX
Apr 22 at 16:54
$begingroup$
@SpehroPefhany You are right that the chart (STANDARD VALUES AND CASE SIZES) data sheet I posted is explicitly for a part number breakdown and not necessary related to the actual markings on the cap. However I have seen this convention used for many capacitors with this type of form factor which is how my answer came about. I can't cite any actual standard nor can I find a source that states when the actual value or an abbreviated value is used. I'll update my answer to highlight this ambiguity.
$endgroup$
– Clipboard_Waving_Enginerd
Apr 22 at 17:32
5
5
$begingroup$
No, it is 100uF. In fact the photo in your link shows how 10uF capacitors are marked, which is different from the part number.
$endgroup$
– Spehro Pefhany
Apr 22 at 16:37
$begingroup$
No, it is 100uF. In fact the photo in your link shows how 10uF capacitors are marked, which is different from the part number.
$endgroup$
– Spehro Pefhany
Apr 22 at 16:37
3
3
$begingroup$
I Agree with Sphero Pefhany.
$endgroup$
– MikeTeX
Apr 22 at 16:54
$begingroup$
I Agree with Sphero Pefhany.
$endgroup$
– MikeTeX
Apr 22 at 16:54
$begingroup$
@SpehroPefhany You are right that the chart (STANDARD VALUES AND CASE SIZES) data sheet I posted is explicitly for a part number breakdown and not necessary related to the actual markings on the cap. However I have seen this convention used for many capacitors with this type of form factor which is how my answer came about. I can't cite any actual standard nor can I find a source that states when the actual value or an abbreviated value is used. I'll update my answer to highlight this ambiguity.
$endgroup$
– Clipboard_Waving_Enginerd
Apr 22 at 17:32
$begingroup$
@SpehroPefhany You are right that the chart (STANDARD VALUES AND CASE SIZES) data sheet I posted is explicitly for a part number breakdown and not necessary related to the actual markings on the cap. However I have seen this convention used for many capacitors with this type of form factor which is how my answer came about. I can't cite any actual standard nor can I find a source that states when the actual value or an abbreviated value is used. I'll update my answer to highlight this ambiguity.
$endgroup$
– Clipboard_Waving_Enginerd
Apr 22 at 17:32
add a comment |
6
$begingroup$
Looks like a 100 µF 35V electrolytic capacitor.
$endgroup$
– evildemonic
Apr 22 at 15:55
1
$begingroup$
Measure the diameter (and height if there is a height restriction) with calipers. It tells you the specific package required for the replacement otherwise it may not fit onto the PCB.
$endgroup$
– Toor
Apr 22 at 17:48
1
$begingroup$
Looks to me as though whatever is to the left of that capacitor is possibly the real cause of the problem. The cap itself looks fine other than a bit of gunk on the side from that other thing.
$endgroup$
– brhans
Apr 22 at 18:07