Arfa Daily wrote:

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
.com...
On 6/19/2010 8:35 AM Adrian Tuddenham spake thus:

David Nebenzahl 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/compto...sAmplifier.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 he 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.


I must say that I don't really like the staggered connections,...

They do tend to give a slightly messy appearance, but the alternatives
were worse:

1) Stagger one half of the output stage slightly to the right (takes up
more space and doesn't shout "symmetry" to the reader).

2) Use loops for crossings (even messier in appearance).

3) Dotted and un-dotted crossings (error-prone because the
straight-through line misleads the eye in spite of the dot).


--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk