Schematics & standards
David Nebenzahl
schematics (like for home appliances).
Wanted to get a small discussion going on that topic. My take: there are
good and bad standards for schematics. Personally, I can't stand the
ones that use rectangle shapes for resistors, instead of the traditional
zigzag that [insert name of deity here] intended to be used. (And even
here there are lots of variations, like old-fashioned schematics that
took this symbol rather literally and sometimes had ten or twelve zigs
and zags, as if an actual resistor was being constructed on paper).
Likewise the wire-connecting/jumping convention: here I much prefer the
modern approach, which is to use a dot for a connection and no dot for
no connection, rather than the clumsy "loop" to indicate one wire
jumping over another with no connection.
Regarding resistor values: Who the hell came up with that new way of
specifying resistance values, like "10R" "or 5K6" or whatever? And why
use this system? I've always used the plain value of the resistance: 10,
56, 5.6K, 56K, etc. Simple, obvious, requires no interpretation. Is this
some kind of Euro thing?
In general, some schematics just look and feel nicer than others. A
well-drawn schematic is a pleasure to read. A bad one--lines too thin or
too thick, misshapen symbols, idiosyncratic interpretations, etc., just
don't look right.
Feel free to add your own schematic pet peeves here.
--
The fashion in killing has an insouciant, flirty style this spring,
with the flaunting of well-defined muscle, wrapped in flags.
- Comment from an article on Antiwar.com (http://antiwar.com)
Falk Willberg
> Someone else made a comment in another thread here about weird
> schematics (like for home appliances).
>
> Wanted to get a small discussion going on that topic. My take: there are
> good and bad standards for schematics. Personally, I can't stand the
> ones that use rectangle shapes for resistors, instead of the traditional
I prefer the traditional (German?) rectangle shape for resistors, your
zigzag things too much look like inductors, Herr Nebenzahl ;-)
> Likewise the wire-connecting/jumping convention: here I much prefer the
> modern approach, which is to use a dot for a connection and no dot for
> no connection, rather than the clumsy "loop" to indicate one wire
> jumping over another with no connection.
Same here.
> Regarding resistor values: Who the hell came up with that new way of
> specifying resistance values, like "10R" "or 5K6" or whatever? And why
> use this system? I've always used the plain value of the resistance: 10,
> 56, 5.6K, 56K, etc. Simple, obvious, requires no interpretation. Is this
> some kind of Euro thing?
I prefer the nKm to n.mK, as in the second case the very small "." makes
the difference between 5.6 and 56.
Falk
William Sommerwerck
I grew up with Popular Electronics, and it and its sister magazine,
Electronics World, had the nicest-looking schematics I've ever seen,
anywhere. Obviously that's a matter of taste, but they were clean and
handsome (to me).
David Nebenzahl
> Am 18.06.2010 22:18, schrieb David Nebenzahl:
>
>> Someone else made a comment in another thread here about weird
>> schematics (like for home appliances).
>>
>> Wanted to get a small discussion going on that topic. My take: there are
>> good and bad standards for schematics. Personally, I can't stand the
>> ones that use rectangle shapes for resistors, instead of the traditional
>> zigzag that [insert name of deity here] intended to be used...
>
> I prefer the traditional (German?) rectangle shape for resistors, your
> zigzag things too much look like inductors, Herr Nebenzahl ;-)
Danke schoen, Herr Falk. (ich bin nein ein Deutschlander)
So those little boxes are a German thing, eh?
Well, you should see my on resistor symbols (zigzags). You'd *never*
mistake one of them for an inductor.
N_Cook
news:4c1bd34c$0$2542$8226...@news.adtechcomputers.com...
How often have you come across compressed pdf-type schema or reduced
paper-based ones where the decimal point has disappeared , and there is no
kerning for dots, so you cannot infer a position for any dot position.
Replace R/K/M for the dot makes a lot of sense.
Arfa Daily
"N_Cook" <div...@tcp.co.uk> wrote in message
news:hvhv1s$88b$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Yes, I'd go along with that. It is a far more sensible way of showing
values, and I can't see anything counter intuitive about understanding it. I
still prefer zig-zags for resistors, and if I'm drawing a quick 'sketch' of
a diagram, I always still 'jump' the non-connected lines. However, when I'm
hand-drawing a diagram properly, with nice straight lines and 'gridded'
components, I always break one of the two crossing lines, where they break,
so sort of the 'jumping over' convention, but without the actual bridge
being drawn. I'm not sure where I first saw this, but schematics drawn like
it, look quite nice. There's no question about whether lines do connect or
not, and the brain fills in the little missing bit of the line without you
having to think about it. Where lines do connect, they get a nice dot on
them.
I always still use the original logic symbols for gates and counters and
latches and inverters and so on. I find the new style 'blocky' symbols need
too much looking at, and taking into consideration of additional writing and
symbols within the block. I always thought that the original symbols were
all sufficiently different for the most part, to allow instant understanding
of function by quick glance alone.
I would agree that appliance schematics are often unclear, and use odd
symbols. Also, with apologies to Herr Willberg, I think that German
schematics from 20 or 30 years back, are some of the worst to follow that
I've ever seen. I defy anyone who's not German, to follow a Grundig
schematic, for instance ...
Although Dutch, some of Philips' ones from a few years back were also a
nightmare to follow. They had a very frustrating convention regarding where
signals went when they (frequently) disappeared off the side of a page, and
the signal was often nigh on impossible to ever find again ...
But the prize for impossible to follow schematics, has to go to the
automotive industry. Those diagrams have a convention all of their own, and
always have done. Some of the most frustrating fault-tracing sessions of my
life, have involved cars and the electrical diagrams for them. They are a
cross between a schematic and a wiring diagram, with symbols peculiar to and
only understood by automotive manufacturing initiates. Every bullet and
connector is shown, using a variety of different conventions between
manufacturers. Schematics go across multiple pages, with wires that leave
often almost impossible to re-find on the next diagram. Colours, wire gauges
and goodness only knows what other info, are all crammed onto the diagrams.
Nightmare ...
Arfa
Dave Plowman (News)
quite useful where they're close. And therefore 4K7 takes up less room
than 4.7K - and a full stop is more easily missed when reading. Similarly
a circle for an electrolytic, oval for non electrolytic. After all, an IC
is just a box - not a representative of what it does.
As regards a dot where two cables join, I agree. For some reason this
isn't used much these days. With usually a gap where two circuits cross
rather than a loop. With a dot you don't have to do either.
--
*I used to have an open mind but my brains kept falling out *
Dave Plowman da...@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
N_Cook
news:TP%Sn.34795$Ha1.13804@hurricane...
>
>
> "N_Cook" <div...@tcp.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:hvhv1s$88b$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> > David Nebenzahl <nob...@but.us.chickens> wrote in message
> > news:4c1bd34c$0$2542$8226...@news.adtechcomputers.com...
>
My beef is with caps marked 270 say, is it 27 or 270 ?, if there are no
other same series caps on the board for convention comparison, eg 471
Phil Allison
"Falk Willberg"
> I prefer the traditional (German?) rectangle shape for resistors, your
> zigzag things too much look like inductors, Herr Nebenzahl ;-)
** Little boxes, little boxes and they're all made out of ticky tacky .....
Must be some kind of rabid Nazi obsession to put everything and everyone
into boxes ???
With or without Zyklon B gas for filler.
> I prefer the nKm to n.mK, as in the second case the very small "." makes
> the difference between 5.6 and 56.
** Lotsa folk fail to see the * point * of this .....
> Falk
** Must be one of them WW2 Messerschmitt pilots
.... Phil
Michael A. Terrell
You should see some old IBM mainframe schmatics. Almost everything
is a box.
--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.
Adrian Tuddenham
> Someone else made a comment in another thread here about weird
> schematics (like for home appliances).
>
[...]
>... wire-connecting/jumping convention: here I much prefer the
> modern approach, which is to use a dot for a connection and no dot for
> no connection, rather than the clumsy "loop" to indicate one wire
> jumping over another with no connection.
I find the 'gap' convention is easy to draw (with a computer) and
extremely easy to read. It also looks tidy. Four-way junctions which
could be mistaken for crossings should never be used, they should be
staggered instead.
e.g.
http://www.poppyrecords.co.uk/compton/images/BassAmplifier.gif
> Regarding resistor values: Who the hell came up with that new way of
> specifying resistance values, like "10R" "or 5K6" or whatever? And why
> use this system? I've always used the plain value of the resistance: 10,
> 56, 5.6K, 56K, etc. Simple, obvious, requires no interpretation. Is this
> some kind of Euro thing?
I first saw it in German and Dutch publications. Once you have become
accustomed to it, it is quite easy to use and it is utterly unambiguous,
even when badly photocopied.
Probably the best circuit diagrams were those in Wireless World when it
was still part of Illiffe Publications (also those in BBC Technical
Instructions). They were drawn by trained draughtsmen who also
understood electronics.
The worst ones are those with boxes. A symbol should indicate what the
component is without having to read the small print. I was very pleased
when Wireless World declared that it would not be following British
Standards and would continue to use 'proper' symbvols.
--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk
Adrian Tuddenham
[...]
> But the prize for impossible to follow schematics, has to go to the
> automotive industry. Those diagrams have a convention all of their own, and
> always have done.
Some years ago I owned a Standard Vanguard and the circuit diagram in
the owners handbook (you didn't need to buy an expensive workshop
manual) was exemplary. I have never seen one as clear as that for any
other car.
Falk Willberg
> "Falk Willberg"
>
>> I prefer the traditional (German?) rectangle shape for resistors, your
>> zigzag things too much look like inductors, Herr Nebenzahl ;-)
...
> Must be some kind of rabid Nazi obsession to put everything and everyone
> into boxes ???
>
> With or without Zyklon B gas for filler.
By the way, when you have stopped to slaughter aborigines? Before or
after WWII?
Falk
David Nebenzahl
> David Nebenzahl <nob...@but.us.chickens> wrote:
>
>> Someone else made a comment in another thread here about weird
>> schematics (like for home appliances).
>>
> [...]
>>... wire-connecting/jumping convention: here I much prefer the
>> modern approach, which is to use a dot for a connection and no dot for
>> no connection, rather than the clumsy "loop" to indicate one wire
>> jumping over another with no connection.
>
> I find the 'gap' convention is easy to draw (with a computer) and
> extremely easy to read. It also looks tidy. Four-way junctions which
> could be mistaken for crossings should never be used, they should be
> staggered instead.
>
> e.g.
> http://www.poppyrecords.co.uk/compton/images/BassAmplifier.gif
BZZZZZZT! Fail.
While the gap thing looks OK for non-crossing wires, I have to ding the
drafts-person of that schematic for the following:
o Idiosyncratic symbols for electrolytic cazapitors[1]
o Idiosyncratic ground symbol (one horizontal line????)
o And no, I disagree about those offsets for connecting wires.
That's totally unnecessary here: it would be quite obvious that all
those vertical wires connect to what is obviously a bus or rail. A
well-drawn dot is all that's needed there.
(And I don't much like their transistor symbols either)
[1] With apologies to J. Liebermann.
Adrian Tuddenham
> On 6/19/2010 8:35 AM Adrian Tuddenham spake thus:
>
> > David Nebenzahl <nob...@but.us.chickens> wrote:
> >
> >> Someone else made a comment in another thread here about weird
> >> schematics (like for home appliances).
> >>
> > [...]
> >>... wire-connecting/jumping convention: here I much prefer the
> >> modern approach, which is to use a dot for a connection and no dot for
> >> no connection, rather than the clumsy "loop" to indicate one wire
> >> jumping over another with no connection.
> >
> > I find the 'gap' convention is easy to draw (with a computer) and
> > extremely easy to read. It also looks tidy. Four-way junctions which
> > could be mistaken for crossings should never be used, they should be
> > staggered instead.
> >
> > e.g.
> > http://www.poppyrecords.co.uk/compton/images/BassAmplifier.gif
>
> BZZZZZZT! Fail.
>
> While the gap thing looks OK for non-crossing wires, I have to ding the
> drafts-person of that schematic for the following:
>
> o Idiosyncratic symbols for electrolytic cazapitors...
It appears that you had no difficulty identifying them, so they
succeeded as symbols. The polarity is also a lot more 'intuitive' than
the conventional symbol.
> o Idiosyncratic ground symbol (one horizontal line????)
Again, you recognised it without ambiguity and it isn't all that
unusual:
<http://www.ortodoxism.ro/datasheets2/a/0scgel8exqr094jlw9qfjx9qjc3y.pdf
>
> o And no, I disagree about those offsets for connecting wires.
>
> That's totally unnecessary here: it would be quite obvious that all
> those vertical wires connect to what is obviously a bus or rail. A
> well-drawn dot is all that's needed there.
That's your preference, but I prefer offsets because they are utterly
unambiguous, even in a poorly copied drawing.
> (And I don't much like their transistor symbols either)
For junction transistors they are incorrect, I agree, but I have become
used to them. I find it takes me a while to get my mind around the
correct symbols because they are so rarely used nowadays
Just for fun, I've replaced the point-contact symbols in that drawing
with the correct junction ones:
http://www.poppyrecords.co.uk/compton/images/BassAmplifier2.gif
The wrong symbols have become so well-estabilshed nowadays that I doubt
if most people even noticed they were wrong.
David Nebenzahl
Now that's just plain *weird*.
Since when are the *conventional* symbols for (junction) transistors
considered to be for the old, obsolete point-contact ones? Every single
schematic that uses transistors--modern silicon ones, not ancient
point-contact germanium ones--uses the conventional symbols, like the
ones in the first drawing you posted.
I've *never* seen symbols like the ones in your "new, improved" drawing.
Those are just plain idiosyncratic, non-standard and weird. They look
kind of like diodes with an elongated anode.
I'll stick with the tried and true standard symbols, thank you very much.
Adrian Tuddenham
> On 6/19/2010 1:19 PM Adrian Tuddenham spake thus:
>
> > David Nebenzahl <nob...@but.us.chickens> wrote:
> >
> >> (And I don't much like their transistor symbols either)
> >
> > For junction transistors they are incorrect, I agree, but I have become
> > used to them. I find it takes me a while to get my mind around the
> > correct symbols because they are so rarely used nowadays
> >
> > Just for fun, I've replaced the point-contact symbols in that drawing
> > with the correct junction ones:
> >
> > http://www.poppyrecords.co.uk/compton/images/BassAmplifier2.gif
> >
> > The wrong symbols have become so well-estabilshed nowadays that I doubt
> > if most people even noticed they were wrong.
>
> Now that's just plain *weird*.
I thought you would find them interesting.
> Since when are the *conventional* symbols for (junction) transistors
> considered to be for the old, obsolete point-contact ones?
When junction transistors were first introduced there was a need for a
new symbol to distinguish them from the point-contact type which the
'conventional' symbol represented. Several eminent journals and text
books changed over to the new 'junction' symbol, but, by then, the
point-contact symbol was so well established that the change never
caught on.
>Every single
> schematic that uses transistors--modern silicon ones, not ancient
> point-contact germanium ones--uses the conventional symbols, like the
> ones in the first drawing you posted.
You will find the 'junction' symbols in some Acoustical Quad circuit
diagrams, Peter Walker was a stickler for getting things right. They
also appeared in Wireless World for a while and are used in "The
Foundations of Wireless" by M.G. Scroggie (8th Edition) specifically to
distinguish the two different types of transistor.
>
> I've *never* seen symbols like the ones in your "new, improved" drawing.
> Those are just plain idiosyncratic, non-standard and weird. They look
> kind of like diodes with an elongated anode.
They certainly look strange when you have been used to the
point-contact symbol, but you must admit they give a clear
representation of a junction transistor.
>
> I'll stick with the tried and true standard symbols, thank you very much.
At least you will be able to recognise the other types if you ever
encounter them again.
Plain...@yahoo.com
Well, the worst schematics of all are those which you cannot find.
Even the most miserable scratching on a crumpled piece of paper is
better.
While I learned using the 3.3K style, I fiend the 3K3 eminently
satisfactory, especially because of the redundancy. As was
mentioned,, this is important when dealing with a PDF of a poorly
scanned, poorly printed original.
I prefer the 'old' style - zig-zag lines for resistors, parallel lines
for non-polar capacitors, etc.
Lines should be drawn with the little loop when crossing lines do not
connect, a dot when they do. Again, redundancy.
Tags indicating the signal connecting to an IC should have an arrow
indicating if the signal is an input or an output, double arrows for a
bidirectional bus. And when a signal goes off the page, the
description should be accompanied by the page and grid location of the
destination, as in < SYNC 3E5 indicating the SYNC signal is coming
from page 3, grid location E5.
As a bonus, the location of each component should be tabulated,
either on the schematic, or in a separate chart so it is possible to
determine that IC205 is on the bottom side of the circuit board at
grid location J12.
PlainBill
Rich Webb
>Lines should be drawn with the little loop when crossing lines do not
>connect, a dot when they do. Again, redundancy.
Crossings (four-way intersections) never connect. Three-way
intersections always connect. Stick with that convention and neither the
humpie or a dot are needed, although dots do "look right."
There is an authorized reprint of H&H's "How to Draw Schematic Diagrams"
from AoE Appx E over at
http://opencircuitdesign.com/xcircuit/goodschem/goodschem.html
--
Rich Webb Norfolk, VA
Arfa Daily
"David Nebenzahl" <nob...@but.us.chickens> wrote in message
news:4c1d00fe$0$2388$8226...@news.adtechcomputers.com...
I must say that I don't really like the staggered connections, but what's
wrong with the transistor symbols ? And the single heavy horizontal line for
the 0v rail, is very common this side of the pond. 0v rails always used to
be shown as a heavy horizontal line right across the schematic, sometimes
with a chassis symbol attached as well. These days, most schematics are so
complex, that the 0v line is now left out, and 'abbreviated' to individual
short heavy lines at each connection point on the schematic. The
electrolytic symbol is not, however, the one commonly used here, which is a
pair of rectangles, one filled in for the -ve side, and the other open for
the +ve side. Sometimes, the American convention of one straight and one
curved plate, is used.
Arfa
Cydrome Leader
> Someone else made a comment in another thread here about weird
> schematics (like for home appliances).
>
> Wanted to get a small discussion going on that topic. My take: there are
> good and bad standards for schematics. Personally, I can't stand the
> ones that use rectangle shapes for resistors, instead of the traditional
I find rectangles obnoxious, unless somebody from europe is drawing
something in front of me.
> zigzag that [insert name of deity here] intended to be used. (And even
> here there are lots of variations, like old-fashioned schematics that
> took this symbol rather literally and sometimes had ten or twelve zigs
> and zags, as if an actual resistor was being constructed on paper).
>
> Likewise the wire-connecting/jumping convention: here I much prefer the
> modern approach, which is to use a dot for a connection and no dot for
> no connection, rather than the clumsy "loop" to indicate one wire
> jumping over another with no connection.
I was taught the half-loop shape first, then moved to the dots and no
dots. It seemed like how you're taught to ties shoes in a really complex
method of making two rabbit ears first, then tying them.
> Regarding resistor values: Who the hell came up with that new way of
> specifying resistance values, like "10R" "or 5K6" or whatever? And why
> use this system? I've always used the plain value of the resistance: 10,
> 56, 5.6K, 56K, etc. Simple, obvious, requires no interpretation. Is this
> some kind of Euro thing?
I first saw that on this newsgroup. My question is what idiots came up
with it and why?
Cydrome Leader
ha, plus every damn wire is taped together into some completely awful
harness. There has to be at least 50 pounds of PVC electrical tape in
every car out there.
Cydrome Leader
> David Nebenzahl <nob...@but.us.chickens> wrote:
>
>> Someone else made a comment in another thread here about weird
>> schematics (like for home appliances).
>>
> [...]
>>... wire-connecting/jumping convention: here I much prefer the
>> modern approach, which is to use a dot for a connection and no dot for
>> no connection, rather than the clumsy "loop" to indicate one wire
>> jumping over another with no connection.
>
> I find the 'gap' convention is easy to draw (with a computer) and
> extremely easy to read. It also looks tidy. Four-way junctions which
> could be mistaken for crossings should never be used, they should be
> staggered instead.
>
> e.g.
> http://www.poppyrecords.co.uk/compton/images/BassAmplifier.gif
I'd rate this schematic as weird. Some parts are identified, some aren't
and the junctions are complex for no reason.
>> Regarding resistor values: Who the hell came up with that new way of
>> specifying resistance values, like "10R" "or 5K6" or whatever? And why
>> use this system? I've always used the plain value of the resistance: 10,
>> 56, 5.6K, 56K, etc. Simple, obvious, requires no interpretation. Is this
>> some kind of Euro thing?
>
> I first saw it in German and Dutch publications. Once you have become
> accustomed to it, it is quite easy to use and it is utterly unambiguous,
> even when badly photocopied.
Who photocopies stuff anymore, and periods aren't hard to read and never
were, except in places that read right to left and switch periods to
commas.
Banks don't print money is formats like 34$00. "Oh it's hard to read" is
complete crap.
What's next- the germans and dutch replacing numbers with spelled out
words?
I'm surprised the diodes past the output stage aren't indetified as
something like:
1N4k005 or
ONE-NANO-FOUR KILO CIPHER CIPER V
or something just as goofy.
Why are the speakers just 6 ohms, while other resitors have place holders
for digits?
I just don't get it- how does using multiple systems to represent simple
data make things easier?
This is why the finest and best technology comes from the USA. Instead of
trying to rewrite a 20nm process in semiconductor manufacturing as 20nm0
like europeans might form a committee to try to do, we've come out with
15nm process while everybody else is screwing around trying to solve
problems that never existed.
Just curious, has a committee come up with some cool new way to write
voltages too?
The amp uses +/- 30. Should that be written as 30v0 and (30v0) for the
negative rail?
Afer all, a "-" sign is too confusing and might indicate and error that
was crossed out, or a period that was damaged during a recent facsimile
transmission of poorly risographed copy of schematic.
Is 5kV now 5k0?
Adrian Tuddenham
> I must say that I don't really like the staggered connections,...
They do tend to give a slightly messy appearance, but the alternatives
were worse:
1) Stagger one half of the output stage slightly to the right (takes up
more space and doesn't shout "symmetry" to the reader).
2) Use loops for crossings (even messier in appearance).
3) Dotted and un-dotted crossings (error-prone because the
straight-through line misleads the eye in spite of the dot).
Adrian Tuddenham
People often distribute low-resolution scans of printed circuit diagrams
or print them out on poor printers. Sometimes it is almost impossible
to read the figures, let alone distinguish a tiny dot.
> Banks don't print money is formats like 34$00. "Oh it's hard to read" is
> complete crap.
Actually the currency sign often comes first, which is a
long-established convention but very confusing the first time you meet
it.
>
> What's next- the germans and dutch replacing numbers with spelled out
> words?
>
> I'm surprised the diodes past the output stage aren't indetified as
> something like:
>
> 1N4k005 or
> ONE-NANO-FOUR KILO CIPHER CIPER V
>
> or something just as goofy.
>
> Why are the speakers just 6 ohms, while other resitors have place holders
> for digits?
The loudspeakers are nominally 6-ohms impedance (but actually much more
complex), so the markings on them aren't really component values - more
like a part description.
Which resistors only have place holders? I can quite believe that i
have made mistakes in the drawing, but I haven't spotted that one.
> I just don't get it- how does using multiple systems to represent simple
> data make things easier?
>
> This is why the finest and best technology comes from the USA. Instead of
> trying to rewrite a 20nm process in semiconductor manufacturing as 20nm0
> like europeans might form a committee to try to do, we've come out with
> 15nm process while everybody else is screwing around trying to solve
> problems that never existed.
I don't know if the convention was imposed on industry by a committee or
whether it was adopted by industry because it was found to have
advantages in certain circumstances. I agree that we sometimes have too
many committees, but most of Europe (except the U.K.) has acquired the
skill of appearing to comply with new regulations whilst actually
ignoring them.
>
> Just curious, has a committee come up with some cool new way to write
> voltages too?
>
> The amp uses +/- 30. Should that be written as 30v0 and (30v0) for the
> negative rail?
>
> Afer all, a "-" sign is too confusing and might indicate and error that
> was crossed out, or a period that was damaged during a recent facsimile
> transmission of poorly risographed copy of schematic.
>
> Is 5kV now 5k0?
I think you may have (deliberately ?) misunderstood the reason for that
convention. It saves space on small components and is unambiguous.
There is no need to use it for voltages (although "1v1" is easier to
write than 1.1v and less likely to be mistaken for 11v).
The convention of three numbers ("104" = 100K) is even smaller to print
but the interpretation is not as obvious until you get used to it.
Arfa Daily
"Cydrome Leader" <pres...@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote in message
news:hvk3bu$3ju$1...@reader1.panix.com...
Can you really not understand it ? Or are you being deliberately obtuse ? It
has now been explained to the point where a child could understand it. I
think it was actually me who you first saw using it here, and I'm pretty
sure that we went through it all for your benefit at the time ...
Arfa
Dave Plowman (News)
Cydrome Leader <pres...@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote:
> > Regarding resistor values: Who the hell came up with that new way of
> > specifying resistance values, like "10R" "or 5K6" or whatever? And why
> > use this system? I've always used the plain value of the resistance:
> > 10, 56, 5.6K, 56K, etc. Simple, obvious, requires no interpretation.
> > Is this some kind of Euro thing?
> I first saw that on this newsgroup. My question is what idiots came up
> with it and why?
It's been around on this side of the pond for many a year. It uses fewer
characters and no chance of not seeing that little full stop in a poorly
copied diagram. Like everything else you need to get used to it, though.
--
*If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate *
Bruce Esquibel
> They certainly look strange when you have been used to the
> point-contact symbol, but you must admit they give a clear
> representation of a junction transistor.
No they don't.
You guys talk about faded photocopies and the usage of 2.2K vs. 2K2, it ever
occur to you a faded photocopy of the BassAmplifier2.gif, those transistors
come out looking like diodes?
I'm with Dave, I never seen that either.
Plus, what the hell is the S-N-U on the tip35c's and R-G-O on the tip36'c?
I can't find a single datasheet for them that uses anything else besides
E-B-C.
That diagram is terrible.
-bruce
b...@ripco.com
Adrian Tuddenham
> Adrian Tuddenham <adr...@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> > They certainly look strange when you have been used to the
> > point-contact symbol, but you must admit they give a clear
> > representation of a junction transistor.
>
> No they don't.
>
> You guys talk about faded photocopies and the usage of 2.2K vs. 2K2, it ever
> occur to you a faded photocopy of the BassAmplifier2.gif, those transistors
> come out looking like diodes?
Perhaps, but there aren't many diodes with three wire connections that
they could be mistaken for. The direction of the arrows might be lost
if they became blobby, but so would the arrows on the point-contact
symbol.
> I'm with Dave, I never seen that either.
It is unusual nowadays, but if you had been designing in the 1960s you
would have come across it from time to time.
> Plus, what the hell is the S-N-U on the tip35c's and R-G-O on the tip36'c?
Slate-Brown-Blue. Red-Green-Orange. It is the colour code of the
wires. The output transistors are mounted on individual heat sinks and
connected to the rest of the amplifier by a wiring loom, so the colour
code is helpful for fault-finding.
> I can't find a single datasheet for them that uses anything else besides
> E-B-C.
I didn't think there was any need for E-B-C as that should be obvious
from the symbols.
> That diagram is terrible.
We were discussing our preferred symbols and that diagram illustrates my
preferences. My personal dislikes are:
1) The crossing & dot convention.
2) Transistors and valves shown as a collection of electrodes floating
in space without envelopes.
3) Power supply rails all mixed up with the earth rail at the bottom of
the drawing.
For an example of a truly horrible circuit diagram see:
<http://www.audiosharing.com/archive/western/we_amp/pdf/No.8.pdf>
When re-drawn it makes a lot more sense:
< http://www.poppyrecords.co.uk/other/images/WE8a.gif>
Arfa Daily
"Adrian Tuddenham" <adr...@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:1jke3p0.aabxi6jodbawN%adr...@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid...
> Bruce Esquibel <b...@ripco.com> wrote:
>
>> Adrian Tuddenham <adr...@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> > They certainly look strange when you have been used to the
>> > point-contact symbol, but you must admit they give a clear
>> > representation of a junction transistor.
>>
>> No they don't.
>>
>> You guys talk about faded photocopies and the usage of 2.2K vs. 2K2, it
>> ever
>> occur to you a faded photocopy of the BassAmplifier2.gif, those
>> transistors
>> come out looking like diodes?
>
> Perhaps, but there aren't many diodes with three wire connections that
> they could be mistaken for. The direction of the arrows might be lost
> if they became blobby, but so would the arrows on the point-contact
> symbol.
>
The symbol for an adjustable zener, used typically in switch mode power
supplies, looks pretty similar :-)
Arfa
whit3rd
> I prefer the 'old' style - zig-zag lines for resistors, parallel lines
> for non-polar capacitors, etc.
That's OK for digital work, but for RF or high Z, your capacitor
symbol needs to have one line, one curve, as appropriate.
Another subtlety: if the tube symbol has a dot, it's OK to see
a plate glow. No dot, that glow means ... too much current.
Cydrome Leader
Americans also do crazy things like just write a + sign next to the anode
if two parallel lines of equal size are used to represent a capacitor.
On the other hand, only the cathode is marked on electrolytics for some
reason. Is there a great story behind this?
Cydrome Leader
That's funny as writing out values the correct and conventional way
doesn't need explanation and a child can follow it, and it's been that way
for decades.
I'm still waiting to see values for money being written out as 44"euro
symbol"66 with cents after the end instead of 44.66.
periods are too confusing, commas are too confusing! help, we're all
stupid these days!
Cydrome Leader
> In article <hvk3bu$3ju$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
> Cydrome Leader <pres...@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote:
>> > Regarding resistor values: Who the hell came up with that new way of
>> > specifying resistance values, like "10R" "or 5K6" or whatever? And why
>> > use this system? I've always used the plain value of the resistance:
>> > 10, 56, 5.6K, 56K, etc. Simple, obvious, requires no interpretation.
>> > Is this some kind of Euro thing?
>
>> I first saw that on this newsgroup. My question is what idiots came up
>> with it and why?
>
> It's been around on this side of the pond for many a year. It uses fewer
> characters and no chance of not seeing that little full stop in a poorly
> copied diagram. Like everything else you need to get used to it, though.
I saw an original diagram for a bass amplifier earlier in this post.
it looked awful and it wasn't a copy. The text annotations looked like
they came from a 9 dot matrix printer and were small and hard to read. The
transistors looked lopsided and weird too. That's how it was from the
start.
I've seriously seen wet-type microfiche printer printouts that look better
and are easier to follow.
Getting bored and changing how you do stuff every few years doesn't make
schematics better looking, eaaier to follow or less ambigious by itself.
So, when do you start to write 1.5km as 1km5?
Cydrome Leader
hahaha.
the "awful" schematic is great. All it needs are euro-notations, then to
be rendered in a small terrible font then saved as a gif.
David Nebenzahl
> My personal dislikes are:
>
> 2) Transistors and valves shown as a collection of electrodes floating
> in space without envelopes.
Agree with this 100%. No need to be so chintzy!
Plain...@yahoo.com
That's an excellent suggestion. Your first?
As an aside, what is it with people who seem to feel they have a
god-given right to dictate the 'right' way to do things? If they had
their way, we'd still be walking everywhere, and seeking shelter in
trees at night. Things change; usually for the better, sometimes not.
Deal with it.
PlainBill
Arfa Daily
"Cydrome Leader" <pres...@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote in message
news:hvlhh5$8rh$2...@reader1.panix.com...
OK then. You started going on about writing voltages in that notation, as
though you couldn't understand that either. Do they not sell zener diodes in
America ? That notation has been used for as long as they've been around.
Like BZY88 C6V8. Have you never seen that, or perhaps you've never
understood what it meant ?
Arfa
Arfa Daily
David Nebenzahl
> "Cydrome Leader" <pres...@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote in message
> news:hvlhh5$8rh$2...@reader1.panix.com...
>
>> Arfa Daily <arfa....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> "Cydrome Leader" <pres...@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote in message
>>> news:hvk3bu$3ju$1...@reader1.panix.com...
>>>
>>>> David Nebenzahl <nob...@but.us.chickens> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Regarding resistor values: Who the hell came up with that new
>>>>> way of specifying resistance values, like "10R" "or 5K6" or
>>>>> whatever? And why use this system? I've always used the plain
>>>>> value of the resistance: 10, 56, 5.6K, 56K, etc. Simple,
>>>>> obvious, requires no interpretation. Is this some kind of
>>>>> Euro thing?
>>>>
>>>> I first saw that on this newsgroup. My question is what idiots came up
>>>> with it and why?
>>>
>>> Can you really not understand it ? Or are you being deliberately
>>> obtuse ? It has now been explained to the point where a child
>>> could understand it. I think it was actually me who you first saw
>>> using it here, and I'm pretty sure that we went through it all
>>> for your benefit at the time ...
>>
>> That's funny as writing out values the correct and conventional way
>> doesn't need explanation and a child can follow it, and it's been that way
>> for decades.
>>
>> I'm still waiting to see values for money being written out as 44"euro
>> symbol"66 with cents after the end instead of 44.66.
>>
>> periods are too confusing, commas are too confusing! help, we're all
>> stupid these days!
>
> OK then. You started going on about writing voltages in that notation, as
> though you couldn't understand that either. Do they not sell zener diodes in
> America ? That notation has been used for as long as they've been around.
> Like BZY88 C6V8. Have you never seen that, or perhaps you've never
> understood what it meant ?
Actually, I think you misunderstood *him*. He was saying that if you're
going to use that strange system for resistances, why not also use it
for voltages (or perhaps any quantity) as well? Instead of 5.6 volts,
since you're so all-fired worried about the potential loss of a period
(sorry, full stop), then you should write it as 5V6, no? Or something
like that.
I agree with him. Why the concern about potential loss of decimal-place
information regarding resistances, but not for other parameters like
voltage?
I think this whole system is needless, and therefore needlessly obtuse,
no matter that people like you may become accustomed to it. How often
does a decimal point actually disappear? Seems as if schematics were
drawn the old "bad" way for decades, and I don't remember any big
hullabaloo about mistaken resistance values.
David Nebenzahl
> As an aside, what is it with people who seem to feel they have a
> god-given right to dictate the 'right' way to do things? If they had
> their way, we'd still be walking everywhere, and seeking shelter in
> trees at night. Things change; usually for the better, sometimes not.
> Deal with it.
I'll say "point taken", even though you are obviously disagreeing with
my (and others') objection to the 8K2 system of ohmic representations.
One could just as easily turn that statement of yours around to wonder
how the committee that mandated this new system of nomenclature has a
right to impose their will on us, as the "god-given right to dictate the
'right' way to do things".
I just think it's needless, therefore not an improvement, as opposed to
how living in houses is obviously an improvement over seeking shelter in
trees at night.
(or is it? ... )
sparky
> Someone else made a comment in another thread here about weird
> schematics (like for home appliances).
>
> Wanted to get a small discussion going on that topic. My take: there are
> good and bad standards for schematics. Personally, I can't stand the
> ones that use rectangle shapes for resistors, instead of the traditional
> here there are lots of variations, like old-fashioned schematics that
> took this symbol rather literally and sometimes had ten or twelve zigs
> and zags, as if an actual resistor was being constructed on paper).
>
> Likewise the wire-connecting/jumping convention: here I much prefer the
> modern approach, which is to use a dot for a connection and no dot for
> no connection, rather than the clumsy "loop" to indicate one wire
> jumping over another with no connection.
The jumping over loop is much easier to read on a messed up copy than
trying to determine if it is a dot or just a smudge.
Using 5K6 for markings also makes it earier to read.
David Nebenzahl
Well, then let me ask you the same question I'm asking others here: if
that's so, then why don't we use that system (8K2, etc.) for other
values like voltages, currents, etc? Aren't they also likely to be hard
to read on a "messed-up copy"? Why not be consistent?
Falk Willberg
> On 6/20/2010 7:09 PM sparky spake thus:
...
>> The jumping over loop is much easier to read on a messed up copy than
>> trying to determine if it is a dot or just a smudge.
>> Using 5K6 for markings also makes it earier to read.
>
> Well, then let me ask you the same question I'm asking others here: if
> that's so, then why don't we use that system (8K2, etc.) for other
> values like voltages, currents, etc? Aren't they also likely to be hard
> to read on a "messed-up copy"? Why not be consistent?
The range of commonly used resistors starts at about 0R1 and ends at 1M.
Capacitors from a few 12pF to some 1000uF. Voltages and currents in
common devices do hardly exceed 2V to 400V (uC incl. SPS on mains) resp.
1mA to some 1A.
When you find fuse marked 630A in a cell-phone, you do directly know,
that it is 630mA.
Falk
Arfa Daily
"David Nebenzahl" <nob...@but.us.chickens> wrote in message
news:4c1ec026$0$2376$8226...@news.adtechcomputers.com...
But surely, it is you who misses the point. Considering that 30 or 40 years
ago, just about all semiconductor houses were American, then is it not
likely that it was an American company that came up with the system of
marking zener diodes? And why would you imagine it was done ? Why to avoid
any ambiguity caused by poorly printed decimal points, of course ...
I suppose you're also one of those Luddites who likes to see all of the
capacitor values in decimals of a microfarad as well, or have you caught up
to nF ?
I'm all for not changing systems that are tried and tested just for the sake
of it, but I'm just as happy to embrace change where it has a positive
benefit. And there is one here. All I can say is that if you have never seen
a poorly reproduced schematic where the component identifiers and values are
hard to read, then either you are not professionally involved in service
work, or you are lying to keep pressing your point.
Arfa
Arfa Daily
"David Nebenzahl" <nob...@but.us.chickens> wrote in message
news:4c1ec140$0$2377$8226...@news.adtechcomputers.com...
> On 6/20/2010 3:25 PM Plain...@yahoo.com spake thus:
>
>> As an aside, what is it with people who seem to feel they have a
>> god-given right to dictate the 'right' way to do things? If they had
>> their way, we'd still be walking everywhere, and seeking shelter in
>> trees at night. Things change; usually for the better, sometimes not.
>> Deal with it.
>
> I'll say "point taken", even though you are obviously disagreeing with my
> (and others') objection to the 8K2 system of ohmic representations.
>
> One could just as easily turn that statement of yours around to wonder how
> the committee that mandated this new system of nomenclature has a right to
> impose their will on us, as the "god-given right to dictate the 'right'
> way to do things".
>
> I just think it's needless, therefore not an improvement, as opposed to
> how living in houses is obviously an improvement over seeking shelter in
> trees at night.
>
> (or is it? ... )
>
>
It's not 'mandated'. Nobody has forced their will on anybody. It's nothing
to do with committees, European based or otherwise. I know we have some
pretty dumb laws and such forced on us by the Euromachine, but it hasn't
reached the point yet where they are dictating how we draw schematics. It's
just a system that someone somewhere - probably a Japanese or Korean
manufacturer, has come up with because they feel that it removes any
possibility of ambiguity on a component value. It's a bit like putting
traffic light turn filter arrows on junctions. For sure, you could argue
that it's not strictly necessary in order to be able to successfully
negotiate the junction. You can do that on a green light alone. But putting
a filter arrow there, removes any ambiguity from when it's safe to go,
particularly for less experienced drivers, or those not absolutely familiar
with a junction.
And as to voltages, some schematics do now use the system for showing
voltages that are in decimal parts. "3V3" is commonly found on schematics.
It's also common now to find the same system in use for capacitors, so 4n7
for instance or 2u2. Whether you like the system or not, it seems to be
getting used more and more, so I think it's a case of learn it and accept
it. It's really no more difficult than any system currently in use, just
different, and it *can* under some circumstances, be an improvement.
Arfa
Cydrome Leader
no, it's you that doesn't get it.
> ago, just about all semiconductor houses were American, then is it not
> likely that it was an American company that came up with the system of
> marking zener diodes? And why would you imagine it was done ? Why to avoid
> any ambiguity caused by poorly printed decimal points, of course ...
you mean like a 1N5351?
> I suppose you're also one of those Luddites who likes to see all of the
> capacitor values in decimals of a microfarad as well, or have you caught up
> to nF ?
>
> I'm all for not changing systems that are tried and tested just for the sake
> of it, but I'm just as happy to embrace change where it has a positive
> benefit. And there is one here. All I can say is that if you have never seen
> a poorly reproduced schematic where the component identifiers and values are
> hard to read, then either you are not professionally involved in service
> work, or you are lying to keep pressing your point.
So when is the last time you got confused over "missing" periods again?
seriously.
Cydrome Leader
> On 6/20/2010 7:09 PM sparky spake thus:
>
>> On Jun 18, 4:18 pm, David Nebenzahl <nob...@but.us.chickens> wrote:
> >
>>> Someone else made a comment in another thread here about weird
>>> schematics (like for home appliances).
>>>
>>> Wanted to get a small discussion going on that topic. My take: there are
>>> good and bad standards for schematics. Personally, I can't stand the
>>> ones that use rectangle shapes for resistors, instead of the traditional
>>> zigzag that [insert name of deity here] intended to be used. (And even
>>> here there are lots of variations, like old-fashioned schematics that
>>> took this symbol rather literally and sometimes had ten or twelve zigs
>>> and zags, as if an actual resistor was being constructed on paper).
>>>
>>> Likewise the wire-connecting/jumping convention: here I much prefer the
>>> modern approach, which is to use a dot for a connection and no dot for
>>> no connection, rather than the clumsy "loop" to indicate one wire
>>> jumping over another with no connection.
>>
>> The jumping over loop is much easier to read on a messed up copy than
>> trying to determine if it is a dot or just a smudge.
>> Using 5K6 for markings also makes it earier to read.
>
> Well, then let me ask you the same question I'm asking others here: if
> that's so, then why don't we use that system (8K2, etc.) for other
> values like voltages, currents, etc? Aren't they also likely to be hard
> to read on a "messed-up copy"? Why not be consistent?
the short answer is they don't know, and like being slaves to stupid
committees.
Arfa Daily
"Cydrome Leader" <pres...@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote in message
news:hvo9oo$qsj$5...@reader1.panix.com...
Clearly, you can't read, which is why you probably can't understand a simple
system. Twat.
Arfa
Cydrome Leader
that's right, I can't read. I can't see periods and get really confused.
Franc Zabkar
<arfa....@ntlworld.com> put finger to keyboard and composed:
>I always still use the original logic symbols for gates and counters and
>latches and inverters and so on. I find the new style 'blocky' symbols need
>too much looking at, and taking into consideration of additional writing and
>symbols within the block. I always thought that the original symbols were
>all sufficiently different for the most part, to allow instant understanding
>of function by quick glance alone.
Those blocky symbols are an IEC standard. I find them utterly
unreadable.
- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.