In article ,
flipper wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 14:30:00 +1000, "Phil Allison"
wrote:
"StickThatInYourPipeAndSmokeIt"
"Phil Allison"
Usage defines meaning and usage VARIES with different groups of people.
Yes. Like little loops placed where two wires intersect but do not
touch (which would be a node) on a schematic... or not.
I say it is archaic. At best.
** Have to disagree there.
Some time back, I purchased a service manual for a 2000 watt stereo power
amplifier ( the EV 2.0 kW ) which includes a pair of switching PSUs.
To my total horror, I found that throughout the many pages of schematics,
not one black dot was to be seen where any lines crossed.
The manual was produced in Korea - as was the amplifier and sold under the
EV brand round the world. When I complained to the people who supplied the
manual to me and was told all copies of the manual were like that.
Took many hours to figure out where black dots needed to be and insert them.
I don't know if they did it correctly (would seem not if you had to
add dots) but the 'new' style is to not have any connections that
appear as line crossings. 'Connections' should always terminate into
the line so a line crossing is, by the 'new' definition, never a
connection. I.E. if the old version would appear as two lines crossing
with a dot indicating a connection then the 'new' way is to split and
offset the opposing ends of one line so they terminate into the (now)
third and do not appear as a continuous line crossing it.
I.E. (in fixed font)
|
|
|
-----------o
|
o------------
|
|
|
The following is always 'no connection' whether a smudge or poor copy
makes it 'appear' to have a 'dot'.
|
|
|
|
-----------|------------
|
|
|
|
|
While I'm aware of this 'new way' I still do it like you, with line
crossings and a dot, if connected.
Are you sure this is the "new way", I thought it has been "the standard"
for at least 40 years. Then there is the European way with those funny
angled connections.
Regards,
John Byrns
--
Surf my web pages at,
http://fmamradios.com/