Schematic preferences
in [Design]
|
Prev: Oil sources Was: Re: Would magn. pole reversal actually mess up electronic equipment?
Next: Oil sources Was: Re: Would magn. pole reversal actually messup electronic equipment?
From: D Yuniskis on 20 Jan 2010 19:33 krw wrote: >>>> So, I will often label signals ignoring any "negated" convention. >>>> E.g., RUN and STOP instead of RUN and RUNN (or NRUN). >>> NEVER! The signals polarity *must* be noted using some convention. >>> Not doing so is just asking for disaster. >> How is my choice of name *not* indicating polarity? > > Seven lines up: > "So, I will often label signals ignoring any "negated" convention." > >> RUN indicates that the system is RUNning when it is >> HIGH. > > That is a positive active signal, so has no "_n". > >> When the STOP signal is high (RUN_n in your parlance), >> then the system is STOPped. > > Again, a positive signal. That's exactly how you match signal name > polarity with component "dot" polarity and DeMorgan correct symbols. > You *are* using proper polarity conventions; they're all positive > active. Exactly! Read my original comment: "E.g., RUN and STOP instead of RUN and RUNN (or NRUN)." Obviously, this refers to *two* signals. One of those is the complement of the other (RUN -> RUNn, RUN -> STOP). The point I was making is that I will *avoid* the "_n" in favor of choosing a signal name that inherently implies the negation of its counterpart. YES -> NO. RUN -> STOP. LEFT -> RIGHT. This avoids the "negation" issue for the most part (i.e., always name "negative" signals with their antonyms) >> I came back an hour later to see how he was doing and found >> him patiently *unwrapping* his work. I assumed he had just >> made a mistake on *that* wrap and kidded him about it: >> "Wrong pin?" He replied "Wrong socket." I assumed he >> meant he had wrapped pin X on socket Y and it should have >> been pin X on socket Z. No. He couldn't differentiate >> red from green and had used the WRONG SOCKET for that device. > > He couldn't count either? I was assigned a dumb technician once too. > It was the last time he worked for me. He assumed the socket he had installed -- since it *looked* the same (color) as the previous one he had installed -- was the same size as that previous one. We aren't all lucky enough to have final say over who gets hired at the places we work (or, at the clients we work *for*).
From: Joel Koltner on 20 Jan 2010 19:51 "krw" <krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote in message news:o66fl554d4069lurcck1bj38n3qqjel16g(a)4ax.com... > Ooooh, I don't like parts that aren't drawn. In general I agree with you, but I'm OK for something as "well-known" as some dozens of bypass caps.
From: krw on 20 Jan 2010 23:19 On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 17:33:28 -0700, D Yuniskis <not.going.to.be(a)seen.com> wrote: >krw wrote: >>>>> So, I will often label signals ignoring any "negated" convention. >>>>> E.g., RUN and STOP instead of RUN and RUNN (or NRUN). >>>> NEVER! The signals polarity *must* be noted using some convention. >>>> Not doing so is just asking for disaster. >>> How is my choice of name *not* indicating polarity? >> >> Seven lines up: >> "So, I will often label signals ignoring any "negated" convention." >> >>> RUN indicates that the system is RUNning when it is >>> HIGH. >> >> That is a positive active signal, so has no "_n". >> >>> When the STOP signal is high (RUN_n in your parlance), >>> then the system is STOPped. >> >> Again, a positive signal. That's exactly how you match signal name >> polarity with component "dot" polarity and DeMorgan correct symbols. >> You *are* using proper polarity conventions; they're all positive >> active. > >Exactly! Read my original comment: Again, your original comment was: "So, I will often label signals ignoring any "negated" convention." ....which is not what you're doing. Negative active signals *MUST* have a negative notation. >"E.g., RUN and STOP instead of RUN and RUNN (or NRUN)." > >Obviously, this refers to *two* signals. One of those is the >complement of the other (RUN -> RUNn, RUN -> STOP). The point I >was making is that I will *avoid* the "_n" in favor of choosing a >signal name that inherently implies the negation of its counterpart. >YES -> NO. RUN -> STOP. LEFT -> RIGHT. > >This avoids the "negation" issue for the most part (i.e., always >name "negative" signals with their antonyms) No it doesn't avoid negation. Parts still have negative inputs and the signal names should match. Negated names for negative logic. >>> I came back an hour later to see how he was doing and found >>> him patiently *unwrapping* his work. I assumed he had just >>> made a mistake on *that* wrap and kidded him about it: >>> "Wrong pin?" He replied "Wrong socket." I assumed he >>> meant he had wrapped pin X on socket Y and it should have >>> been pin X on socket Z. No. He couldn't differentiate >>> red from green and had used the WRONG SOCKET for that device. >> >> He couldn't count either? I was assigned a dumb technician once too. >> It was the last time he worked for me. > >He assumed the socket he had installed -- since it *looked* the same >(color) as the previous one he had installed -- was the same size >as that previous one. Any idiot can tell the difference between a 14-pin socket and a 16-pin socket by inspection. Color isn't even involved. Nope. Not buying it. >We aren't all lucky enough to have final say over who gets >hired at the places we work (or, at the clients we work *for*). I (eventually) get to say who works for me. They want the work done give me competence or at least someone smart enough to learn.
From: krw on 20 Jan 2010 23:20 On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 16:51:43 -0800, "Joel Koltner" <zapwireDASHgroups(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >"krw" <krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote in message >news:o66fl554d4069lurcck1bj38n3qqjel16g(a)4ax.com... >> Ooooh, I don't like parts that aren't drawn. > >In general I agree with you, but I'm OK for something as "well-known" as some >dozens of bypass caps. I wouldn't even go there. Too many ways for things to go wrong.
From: Uwe Hercksen on 21 Jan 2010 10:49
D Yuniskis schrieb: > [I vacillate between preferring B or C size drawings. C is nice > in that it reduces to A nicely (i.e., with the same aspect ratio) > OTOH, B is nice because reducing to A leaves room along the > binding edge -- which must be located "above" the drawing! -- for > three hole punch *or* more professional binding. And, B size > can always be reproduced full size with "fold outs". (frown) B > size (reduced or otherwise) is currently en vogue -- perhaps a > consequence of my aging eyes? :> ] Hallo, in Germany we have well defined paper formats, all these have the same aspect ratio and the next larger format has exactly the double area of the smaller one. Perfect for reduction and magnification. Bye |