Haha, but I'm not laughing.
No seriously, what does the dot behind mean?
No seriously, what does the dot behind mean?
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Perhaps if we knew what catalog those clips were from... Never mind, google finds those are Farnell stock numbers.
Since this occurs in part numbers from two different sources of two different series, my initial reaction would be that it represents some distinction in the catalog house's system. Such things as whether they are lead free or not often get noted in part numbers.
SInce the alternative parts seem to link to the same data sheets from the manufacturers, I am led to guess the dot has to do with alternative sources for the same part.
A quick query to Farnell ought to answer this.
Since this occurs in part numbers from two different sources of two different series, my initial reaction would be that it represents some distinction in the catalog house's system. Such things as whether they are lead free or not often get noted in part numbers.
SInce the alternative parts seem to link to the same data sheets from the manufacturers, I am led to guess the dot has to do with alternative sources for the same part.
A quick query to Farnell ought to answer this.
he, if you read it all, its obvious they have problemes with typing
(18-Jun-2010;
(18-Jun-201;
looks funny, eh
even if same type and code number, still different parts number.....maybe thats what dot indicates
I suspect error comes from software error due to communication error
like if two identical parts are stored with different explanations a software "think" they are different
just two different people typing different about the same part
dot is manually placed at the important number, by which they are sorted by software, and alike
(18-Jun-2010;
(18-Jun-201;
looks funny, eh
even if same type and code number, still different parts number.....maybe thats what dot indicates
I suspect error comes from software error due to communication error
like if two identical parts are stored with different explanations a software "think" they are different
just two different people typing different about the same part
dot is manually placed at the important number, by which they are sorted by software, and alike
Farnell has 2 employees doing data entry, one of them has prior secretarial experience and ends all sentences with a dot.
In case of the 2604 one is a tube of 50 pieces, the other is a single chip.
edit: and with the 4562 the one is US stocked and the other is local stock.
I can see why they would need two exactly the same parts but with different order codes due to these differences. They probalby have some technical reason why the mfg. part number cannot be exactly the same so they add the dot to differentiate.
edit: and with the 4562 the one is US stocked and the other is local stock.
I can see why they would need two exactly the same parts but with different order codes due to these differences. They probalby have some technical reason why the mfg. part number cannot be exactly the same so they add the dot to differentiate.
Last edited:
In addition to MACE1337’s answer there are also other reasons why you could possibly see this. In any industry that utilizes electric power with the exception of third world countries, the design plans for electrical components generally are inspected and a certain number are stress tested and the approved for distribution.
Here in the US we deal with UL (Underwriters Laboratories) and other countries generally have their own regulatory group or groups. In 19 years of doing IBM Mid-Range (AIX/UNIX) administration and hardware support (first micro-channel and then P-series), I have seen cases where the same exact part has been released under 5-10 different part numbers. One number for the first release, then second number for a release with a different micro-code (binary card instructions) or a card that is only authorized (designed and tested) for releaswe in a specific country, in one case that was Brazil.
I agree the syntax is begging for misunderstandings on the part of the customer and overworked warehouse staff while pulling pick tickets.
Here in the US we deal with UL (Underwriters Laboratories) and other countries generally have their own regulatory group or groups. In 19 years of doing IBM Mid-Range (AIX/UNIX) administration and hardware support (first micro-channel and then P-series), I have seen cases where the same exact part has been released under 5-10 different part numbers. One number for the first release, then second number for a release with a different micro-code (binary card instructions) or a card that is only authorized (designed and tested) for releaswe in a specific country, in one case that was Brazil.
I agree the syntax is begging for misunderstandings on the part of the customer and overworked warehouse staff while pulling pick tickets.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.