Schematics & standards
in [Repair]
|
Prev: Sound Technology ST-1700B distortion analyzer measurement pegs meter on low range.
Next: Simple hack to get $1500 to your home.
From: Adrian Tuddenham on 19 Jun 2010 11:35 David Nebenzahl <nobody(a)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 > 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
From: Falk Willberg on 19 Jun 2010 13:40 Am 19.06.2010 15:59, schrieb Phil Allison: > "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
From: David Nebenzahl on 19 Jun 2010 13:45 On 6/19/2010 8:35 AM Adrian Tuddenham spake thus: > David Nebenzahl <nobody(a)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. -- 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: Adrian Tuddenham on 19 Jun 2010 16:19 David Nebenzahl <nobody(a)but.us.chickens> wrote: > On 6/19/2010 8:35 AM Adrian Tuddenham spake thus: > > > David Nebenzahl <nobody(a)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. -- ~ Adrian Tuddenham ~ (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply) www.poppyrecords.co.uk
From: David Nebenzahl on 19 Jun 2010 16:56
On 6/19/2010 1:19 PM Adrian Tuddenham spake thus: > David Nebenzahl <nobody(a)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*. 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. -- 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) |