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: John Larkin on 21 Jan 2010 21:32 On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 19:48:40 -0600, John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 08:32:48 -0800, John Larkin ><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 05:26:50 -0800 (PST), mpm <mpmillard(a)aol.com> >>wrote: >> >>>On Jan 18, 3:37�pm, D Yuniskis <not.going.to...(a)seen.com> wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Of course, this is *highly* subjective -- but, I'd enjoy hearing >>>> folks' "conventions" used when preparing schematics (that *others* >>>> will consume -- how you scribble for your own purposes isn't >>>> important as it depends a lot on what *you* want out of the >>>> drawing). >>> >>> >>>My main rule (a preference actually) is that the same name be used in >>>the callouts when a circuit involves several schematic sheets! >>> >>>I once worked for a video company that had a PLL circuit that >>>traversed 6 or 7 different circuit boards. >>>I guess each engineer / designer was responsible for his own board, >>>because none of the names matched up. >>>This made final device test & calibration very difficult. >>> >>>This device comprised roughly 75 "D-size" sheets of schematics. >>>I can still smell the ammonia from the Diazit copier.. >> >>I still have and use a D-size diazo copier! > >--- >My need for generating and disseminating drawings is modest, so I use my >trusty old HP DesignJet 450C. > > >JF Once our schematics get CADded, we print B-size schematics on a laser printer or on our digital copier. I design with pencil on vellum, so I need to be able to make copies of that for out layout person and such. The blueline doesn't get used much. Lots of engineers have never seen one before! John
From: MooseFET on 21 Jan 2010 22:09 On Jan 21, 7:49 am, Uwe Hercksen <herck...(a)mew.uni-erlangen.de> wrote: > 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. This is also true of the paper sizes used in the US. I'd almost bet that the German size standards are the metric versions of the US ones. 216 * 279 mm ? > > Bye
From: Uwe Hercksen on 22 Jan 2010 07:42 MooseFET schrieb: > 216 * 279 mm ? Hello, no, that is wrong. Only if the ration between the short and the long side is sqrt(2) you may cut two halfs of one sheet with the same ratio of the sides. Our DIN A4 ist 210 * 297 mm, DIN EN ISO 216. Bye
From: MooseFET on 22 Jan 2010 09:54 On Jan 22, 4:42 am, Uwe Hercksen <herck...(a)mew.uni-erlangen.de> wrote: > MooseFET schrieb: > > > 216 * 279 mm ? > > Hello, > > no, that is wrong. Only if the ration between the short and the long > side is sqrt(2) you may cut two halfs of one sheet with the same ratio > of the sides. Our DIN A4 ist 210 * 297 mm, DIN EN ISO 216. > > Bye Yes, you are right. The 8.5" x 11" US sizes allow for some loss from trimming the edges in the print shop. So although the print shop prints two 8.5x11 sheets on the same stock at it prints an 11x17 etc, the dimensions are not right to come out to exact.
From: John Fields on 22 Jan 2010 12:01
On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 19:09:22 -0800 (PST), MooseFET <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote: >On Jan 21, 7:49�am, Uwe Hercksen <herck...(a)mew.uni-erlangen.de> wrote: >> 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. > >This is also true of the paper sizes used in the US. --- Not true. ANSI drawing areas double with every step up, but the aspect ratios only stay the same for every other step. For example,ANSI LETTER SIZE DIMS AREA ASPECT RATIO ANSI X",Y" IN� X/Y -------------+--------+-------+----------------- PORTRAIT A 8.5,11 93.5 0.773 (1/1.294) LANDSCAPE A 11,8.5 93.5 1.294 B 17,11 187 1.545 C 22,17 374 1.294 D 34,22 748 1.545 E 44,34 1596 1.294 VS ISO: LETTER SIZE DIMS AREA ASPECT RATIO ISO Xmm,Ymm mm� X/Y -------------+----------+---------+--------------- A0 1189,841 999,949 1.414 A1 841,594 499,554 1.416 A2 594,420 249,480 1.414 A3 420,297 124,740 1.414 A4 297,210 62,370 1.414 A5 210,148 31,080 1.419 A6 148,105 15,540 1.409 >I'd almost bet >that the German size standards are the metric versions of the US ones. >216 * 279 mm ? --- I don't think so. Since the A0 size was chosen to have an area of one square meter with an aspect ratio ~ sqrt2, and each smaller size was half the area of the former, with the same aspect ratio, then A4 is the closest you can get to 8-1/2 X 11" since 216 X 279mm doesn't exist. JF |