Schematics & standards
in [Repair]
|
Prev: Yamaha MM8 synth: Every 6th key dead
Next: Sound Technology ST-1700B distortion analyzer measurement pegs meter on low range.
From: David Nebenzahl on 18 Jun 2010 16:18 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. 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)
From: Falk Willberg on 18 Jun 2010 16:32 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 ;-) > 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
From: William Sommerwerck on 18 Jun 2010 18:29 I agree mit Herr Nebenzahl. 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).
From: David Nebenzahl on 18 Jun 2010 22:21 On 6/18/2010 1:32 PM Falk Willberg spake thus: > 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. -- 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)
From: N_Cook on 19 Jun 2010 04:29
David Nebenzahl <nobody(a)but.us.chickens> wrote in message news:4c1bd34c$0$2542$822641b3(a)news.adtechcomputers.com... > 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. > > 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) 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. |