John Fields wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
John Fields wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Peter Bennett wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Peter Bennett wrote:
"gore" wrote:

I work at an electronics contract manufacturimg facility. We do work for
several companies and I wonder why they use different labels on the
schematics and pcb's to refer to IC's. Some of them have a U1, an A1, and
X1, or an IC1. Why do they do this? Is there a standard used to label IC's
in a schematic? Just curious why this is.

The standard reference designator for integrated circuits is "U" -
anything else is wrong! ( IMHO :-) )

And what does U stand for ? Probably the stupidest choice ever aside from Q.

Perhaps U = Unit?

That's 2 votes for Unit and one for Unique so far in this thread. I have also
heard Unknown mentioned.

---
Where?

In one of the sci.electronics groups.

---
This one, a few minutes ago, huh?

I think it was around a year ago when the subject popped up briefly once before.
Probably s.e.d or s.e.b

Graham

Tom Del Rosso wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
Tom Del Rosso wrote:

U is 100% unambiguous too. It means IC.

Like converting pounds to kg makes sense too ?


Why use another letter when you 2 that describe the part properly ?

I first saw U on a schematic around 1980, because that's when I first saw
schematics of a commercial product. Before that, all I had seen were the
diagrams in Popular Electronics magazine, and they always used IC.

So honestly, it conveys a meaningful distinction for me. When I see U that
tells me it is (more likely to be) a professional design.

What a curious idea !

Graham

John Larkin wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

TR for TRansistor. He's the famous Quad 405 amplifier. The 'current dumper'.
http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTri...ad405cirb.html

What a hideous hack!

What part of it is hideous ? I'll set Allison on you.

Graham

John Larkin wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

TR for TRansistor. He's the famous Quad 405 amplifier. The 'current dumper'.
http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTri...ad405cirb.html

What a hideous hack!

A very FAMOUS hack that produced the first truly new audio power amplifier concept
in decades.

http://www.google.com/search?&rls=en...ping+amplifier

Graham

On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 21:35:19 +0000, Eeyore
wrote:



Tom Del Rosso wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
Tom Del Rosso wrote:

U is 100% unambiguous too. It means IC.

Like converting pounds to kg makes sense too ?


Why use another letter when you 2 that describe the part properly ?

I first saw U on a schematic around 1980, because that's when I first saw
schematics of a commercial product. Before that, all I had seen were the
diagrams in Popular Electronics magazine, and they always used IC.

So honestly, it conveys a meaningful distinction for me. When I see U that
tells me it is (more likely to be) a professional design.

What a curious idea !

---
Not at all, and he's right, as borne out by the fact that I use the
reference designator 'U' for integrated circuits, while you use 'IC'.

John Fields

Professional Circuit Designer.

On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 21:39:40 +0000, Eeyore
wrote:



John Larkin wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

TR for TRansistor. He's the famous Quad 405 amplifier. The 'current dumper'.
http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTri...ad405cirb.html

What a hideous hack!

A very FAMOUS hack that produced the first truly new audio power amplifier concept
in decades.

http://www.google.com/search?&rls=en...ping+amplifier

Graham

A complementary-pair class B amp, with a b-e resistor to somewhat
smooth the gap in the transfer function, has been in use since at
least the mid-60's. Only audiophools whould consider this to be a
great concept, much less a famous invention.

It's still bloated, hideous, and obviously designed by fiddling. D5
and D6 must have been added to increase the already bad TIM
distortion.

Audio is such crap.

John

John Fields wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Tom Del Rosso wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote
Tom Del Rosso wrote:

U is 100% unambiguous too. It means IC.

Like converting pounds to kg makes sense too ?


Why use another letter when you 2 that describe the part properly ?

I first saw U on a schematic around 1980, because that's when I first saw
schematics of a commercial product. Before that, all I had seen were the
diagrams in Popular Electronics magazine, and they always used IC.

So honestly, it conveys a meaningful distinction for me. When I see U that
tells me it is (more likely to be) a professional design.

What a curious idea !

---
Not at all, and he's right, as borne out by the fact that I use the
reference designator 'U' for integrated circuits, while you use 'IC'.

I know a European company that uses I. Even I disapprove of that.

What reference (and symbol) would you use for an MOV btw ? Or a Polyswitch ?

On btw - using the dual letter thing I've even used CE for capacitor electrolytic.

Graham

John Larkin wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
John Larkin wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

TR for TRansistor. He's the famous Quad 405 amplifier. The 'current dumper'.
http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTri...ad405cirb.html

What a hideous hack!

A very FAMOUS hack that produced the first truly new audio power amplifier concept
in decades.

http://www.google.com/search?&rls=en...ping+amplifier

A complementary-pair class B amp, with a b-e resistor to somewhat
smooth the gap in the transfer function, has been in use since at
least the mid-60's. Only audiophools whould consider this to be a
great concept, much less a famous invention.

It's still bloated, hideous, and obviously designed by fiddling. D5
and D6 must have been added to increase the already bad TIM
distortion.

I'm afraid this is a classic Whooooshhhhh ! You've missed what it does completely. I
doubt you even red one of those links from Google in detail. It doesn't happen to stir
me especially, not least because of the relatively slow devices when it was designed
but they fixed that with Jap power discretes.


Audio is such crap.

Not as designed by me it isn't. But I suspect you're a 'tin ear' kind of guy, so no
offence taken.

Graham

On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 22:43:58 +0000, Eeyore
wrote:



John Fields wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Tom Del Rosso wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote
Tom Del Rosso wrote:

U is 100% unambiguous too. It means IC.

Like converting pounds to kg makes sense too ?


Why use another letter when you 2 that describe the part properly ?

I first saw U on a schematic around 1980, because that's when I first saw
schematics of a commercial product. Before that, all I had seen were the
diagrams in Popular Electronics magazine, and they always used IC.

So honestly, it conveys a meaningful distinction for me. When I see U that
tells me it is (more likely to be) a professional design.

What a curious idea !

---
Not at all, and he's right, as borne out by the fact that I use the
reference designator 'U' for integrated circuits, while you use 'IC'.

I know a European company that uses I. Even I disapprove of that.

What reference (and symbol) would you use for an MOV btw ?

---
ZXX
|\ \ /|
---| | |---
|/ \ \|

Or a Polyswitch ?

__
___/\/ __
__/\/
FXX

On btw - using the dual letter thing I've even used CE for capacitor electrolytic.

---
That has no business being on the schematic or the PCB; it belongs on
the BOM.

Besides, it's confusing since it could cause someone to think it refers
to that goofy euro self-certifying 'CE' marking.

JF

On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 21:26:57 +0000, Eeyore
wrote:



John Fields wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
John Fields wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
"gore" wrote:

I work at an electronics contract manufacturimg facility. We do work for
several companies and I wonder why they use different labels on the
schematics and pcb's to refer to IC's. Some of them have a U1, an A1, and
X1, or an IC1. Why do they do this? Is there a standard used to label IC's
in a schematic? Just curious why this is.

Thanks


U (IC) = IC

Q (TR) = transistor

D = diode (CR is archaic) (well at least we can agree on that. Why not U and
Q too whilst at it ?)

T (or TR or TX ) = transformer

L = inductor

A = assembly

R = resistor (all kinds)

RN = resistor network.

C = capacitor (ditto)

P, J (CN, CON, CONN, sometime J) are connectors

I prefer J for user selectable 'jumpers/headers' that take shorting links.

B = battery

F = fuse

K (RL, RLY) = relay

S (SW) = switch

V (V for valve) = tube

IC, CON, HDR, TR, VR, CHO, RN, RV, RLY, SW, LED and such are all
amateur inventions.

No they make vastly more sense. How can you justify the use of Q for a
transistor for example ? A quansistor ?

It was justified by the fact that it was available. It doesn't need
any more justification for people who know what they are doing.

What a particularly STUPID response.

Why not E, H, N, P, W for example ? Or Z ?

---
'E' was being used for test points, 'P' for male (plug) connectors with
either male or female contacts, 'W' for wire harnesses or cables, and
'Z' for filters.

So out of 'H', 'N', and 'Q', 'Q' was chosen.

What gives you heartburn about that? That it wasn't you who got to
choose?

Sensible people use TP for test points. Connectors can be CN, CON or CONN.

---
Then, no doubt, you'd use 'FR' or something like that.
---

The only use of FR I know w.r.t. PCBs is 'fire retardant' as in FR-4.


Connectors can be CN, CON or CONN.

---
They can be designated anything when left to the likes of you, but
they're usually designated 'PXXX' or 'JXXX' by people who know what
they're doing.

Not here.

---
Figures...
---

Another one is SKT (socket). I think BT (our equivalent of Bell) like that one.
I think they also use PL = plug.

---
We don't.

We use PXXX for a male connector, whether it carries male or female
pins, and JXXX for a female connector, whether it carries male or female
pins.
---

You see using more than one letter makes it so much more descriptive and avoids all those
crazy miltiple allocations in your ANSI doc.

---
"Miltiple"?

I guess, in your drunken state, you didn't notice that many of those
reference designations use more than one letter.

Also, I guess that, in your drunken state, you didn't realize that the
schematic symbol coupled with the reference designation peculiar to that
device would yield an unambiguous electrical and mechanical map of the
circuit, which is what it's all about, Alfie...

JF

John Fields wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
John Fields wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Tom Del Rosso wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote
Tom Del Rosso wrote:

U is 100% unambiguous too. It means IC.

Like converting pounds to kg makes sense too ?


Why use another letter when you 2 that describe the part properly ?

I first saw U on a schematic around 1980, because that's when I first saw
schematics of a commercial product. Before that, all I had seen were the
diagrams in Popular Electronics magazine, and they always used IC.

So honestly, it conveys a meaningful distinction for me. When I see U that
tells me it is (more likely to be) a professional design.

What a curious idea !

---
Not at all, and he's right, as borne out by the fact that I use the
reference designator 'U' for integrated circuits, while you use 'IC'.

I know a European company that uses I. Even I disapprove of that.

What reference (and symbol) would you use for an MOV btw ?

---
ZXX
|\ \ /|
---| | |---
|/ \ \|

Or a Polyswitch ?

__
___/\/ __
__/\/
FXX

Z and F ? You have to be kidding me !


On btw - using the dual letter thing I've even used CE for capacitor electrolytic.

---
That has no business being on the schematic or the PCB; it belongs on
the BOM.

Besides, it's confusing since it could cause someone to think it refers
to that goofy euro self-certifying 'CE' marking.

Not possible. The CE mark has a defined 'font' and minimum size that would not be
applicable to a PCB legend.

Shows how much YOU know !

Graham

flipper wrote:

ANSI, however, does assign them.

ANSI is totally IRRELEVANT. Of its own stupidity.

Graham

flipper wrote:

John Fields wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

IC is self-explanatory and is widely used in Europe
U is some weird US practice. U for what ?

Which, to his point of "make sense," is a good example of how you
quickly run out of 'intuitive' letters.

Which is why using 2 letters where relevant makes so much more sense.

Graham

Eeyore wrote:

flipper wrote:

ANSI, however, does assign them.

ANSI is totally IRRELEVANT. Of its own stupidity.


No, that would be you.


--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

aioe.org, Goggle Groups, and Web TV users must request to be white
listed, or I will not see your messages.

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm


There are two kinds of people on this earth:
The crazy, and the insane.
The first sign of insanity is denying that you're crazy.

On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 04:07:19 +0000, Eeyore
wrote:



John Fields wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
John Fields wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Tom Del Rosso wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote
Tom Del Rosso wrote:

U is 100% unambiguous too. It means IC.

Like converting pounds to kg makes sense too ?


Why use another letter when you 2 that describe the part properly ?

I first saw U on a schematic around 1980, because that's when I first saw
schematics of a commercial product. Before that, all I had seen were the
diagrams in Popular Electronics magazine, and they always used IC.

So honestly, it conveys a meaningful distinction for me. When I see U that
tells me it is (more likely to be) a professional design.

What a curious idea !

---
Not at all, and he's right, as borne out by the fact that I use the
reference designator 'U' for integrated circuits, while you use 'IC'.

I know a European company that uses I. Even I disapprove of that.

What reference (and symbol) would you use for an MOV btw ?

---
ZXX
|\ \ /|
---| | |---
|/ \ \|

Or a Polyswitch ?

__
___/\/ __
__/\/
FXX

Z and F ? You have to be kidding me !

---
Instead of just flapping your gums, why don't you prove me wrong,
bigmouth.
---

On btw - using the dual letter thing I've even used CE for capacitor electrolytic.

---
That has no business being on the schematic or the PCB; it belongs on
the BOM.

Besides, it's confusing since it could cause someone to think it refers
to that goofy euro self-certifying 'CE' marking.

Not possible. The CE mark has a defined 'font' and minimum size that would not be
applicable to a PCB legend.

Shows how much YOU know !

---
No. it shows how _little_ I know and/or care about your goofy euro
"standards".

Except of course for that useless RoHS **** you've foisted on the world
under the guise of pretending that you know what you're talking about.

JF

On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 04:12:55 +0000, Eeyore
wrote:



flipper wrote:

ANSI, however, does assign them.

ANSI is totally IRRELEVANT. Of its own stupidity.

---
PKB?

JF

On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 04:15:10 +0000, Eeyore
wrote:



flipper wrote:

John Fields wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

IC is self-explanatory and is widely used in Europe
U is some weird US practice. U for what ?

Which, to his point of "make sense," is a good example of how you
quickly run out of 'intuitive' letters.

Which is why using 2 letters where relevant makes so much more sense.

---
'U' was the original reference designation and is perfectly relevant as
well as being conservative in structure.

Carried to its logical conclusion, your way would have 'INTEGRATED
CIRCUIT XXX" emblazoned on the PCB.


JF

On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 07:45:41 -0600, John Fields
wrote:

Except of course for that useless RoHS **** you've foisted on the world
under the guise of pretending that you know what you're talking about.

JF


Yet another hidden contributor to the world's current economic
downturn. Thanks a lot, Europe. The materials used in electronics were
not a problem, and did not need to be handcuffed by stupid twits that
propagandize their version of "the facts".

On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 18:57:47 -0600, John Fields
wrote:

On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 21:26:57 +0000, Eeyore
wrote:



John Fields wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
John Fields wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
"gore" wrote:

I work at an electronics contract manufacturimg facility. We do work for
several companies and I wonder why they use different labels on the
schematics and pcb's to refer to IC's. Some of them have a U1, an A1, and
X1, or an IC1. Why do they do this? Is there a standard used to label IC's
in a schematic? Just curious why this is.

Thanks


U (IC) = IC

Q (TR) = transistor

D = diode (CR is archaic) (well at least we can agree on that. Why not U and
Q too whilst at it ?)

T (or TR or TX ) = transformer

L = inductor

A = assembly

R = resistor (all kinds)

RN = resistor network.

C = capacitor (ditto)

P, J (CN, CON, CONN, sometime J) are connectors

I prefer J for user selectable 'jumpers/headers' that take shorting links.

B = battery

F = fuse

K (RL, RLY) = relay

S (SW) = switch

V (V for valve) = tube

IC, CON, HDR, TR, VR, CHO, RN, RV, RLY, SW, LED and such are all
amateur inventions.

No they make vastly more sense. How can you justify the use of Q for a
transistor for example ? A quansistor ?

It was justified by the fact that it was available. It doesn't need
any more justification for people who know what they are doing.

What a particularly STUPID response.

Why not E, H, N, P, W for example ? Or Z ?

---
'E' was being used for test points, 'P' for male (plug) connectors with
either male or female contacts, 'W' for wire harnesses or cables, and
'Z' for filters.

So out of 'H', 'N', and 'Q', 'Q' was chosen.

What gives you heartburn about that? That it wasn't you who got to
choose?

Sensible people use TP for test points. Connectors can be CN, CON or CONN.

---
Then, no doubt, you'd use 'FR' or something like that.
---

The only use of FR I know w.r.t. PCBs is 'fire retardant' as in FR-4.


Connectors can be CN, CON or CONN.

---
They can be designated anything when left to the likes of you, but
they're usually designated 'PXXX' or 'JXXX' by people who know what
they're doing.

Not here.

---
Figures...
---

Another one is SKT (socket). I think BT (our equivalent of Bell) like that one.
I think they also use PL = plug.

---
We don't.

We use PXXX for a male connector, whether it carries male or female
pins, and JXXX for a female connector, whether it carries male or female
pins.
---

You see using more than one letter makes it so much more descriptive and avoids all those
crazy miltiple allocations in your ANSI doc.

---
"Miltiple"?

I guess, in your drunken state, you didn't notice that many of those
reference designations use more than one letter.

Also, I guess that, in your drunken state, you didn't realize that the
schematic symbol coupled with the reference designation peculiar to that
device would yield an unambiguous electrical and mechanical map of the
circuit, which is what it's all about, Alfie...

JF


Yes, individual circuit elements have evolved a long way.

From declaring single, discreet devices on a PWA assembly, which is the
topic of this thread.

You are right on the mark, BTW. Showing decades of experience, and you
actually retained what you learned. You were not just there, oblivious
to the terms used in the field, plodding along, like apparently some are.


...to describing a single, modular elements of an assembled rack based
system.

My current usage for integrated high frequency RF systems is:

WXXX for wire and cable labeling and interconnections. All wires have
labels at both ends with JXXX and PXXX designations and a label in the
center as each wire has a discreet part number.

S/CXXX for Splitter / Combiner devices.

FXXX for filter devices

ARXXX for Amplifier / Repeater

MX-XXX for Mixer devices

LOXXX for signal synthesizer devices

ATXXX for Attenuators

Strangely (not) JXXX and PXXX are still used for connection
terminations, so I cannot figure out why some of these dopes are
unfamiliar with it.

On Fri, 05 Dec 2008 17:58:31 -0800, John Larkin
wrote:

D = diode (CR is archaic)

Not in the high voltage power supply realm, it isn't.

On Fri, 5 Dec 2008 22:11:43 -0500, "Tom Del Rosso"
wrote:


CR is still common. Is that supposed to be "controlled rectifier" (like in
SCR)?


No. Cathode rectifier.

Speaking of which, what do you use for SCR's and triacs?


UXXX

On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 08:27:06 +0000, Eeyore
wrote:



Peter Bennett wrote:

"gore" wrote:

I work at an electronics contract manufacturimg facility. We do work for
several companies and I wonder why they use different labels on the
schematics and pcb's to refer to IC's. Some of them have a U1, an A1, and
X1, or an IC1. Why do they do this? Is there a standard used to label IC's
in a schematic? Just curious why this is.

The standard reference designator for integrated circuits is "U" -
anything else is wrong! ( IMHO :-) )

And what does U stand for ? Probably the stupidest choice ever aside from Q.

Graham


You really are an idiot, donkey boy.

On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 15:58:54 +0000, Eeyore
wrote:



"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
"Tom Del Rosso" wrote:
"John Larkin" wrote

IC, CON, HDR, TR, VR, CHO, RN, RV, RLY, SW, LED and such are all
amateur inventions.

CR is still common. Is that supposed to be "controlled rectifier" (like in
SCR)?

It was "crystal rectifier", and D was "dynamotor". You don't see many
surface-mount dynamotors [1] any more, so lots of people have swiped D
for diodes.

These designators are the classic military ones.

In the USA !

Of course in the USA. America has built most of the military
electronics that have been used, since the start of WW-II. We can't
leave a task like that to amateurs, and idiots.

Actually, you simply copied many British designs.

Graham


Christ! You are worse than the Russians, when they claimed to have
everything before us!

You're an absolute idiot, donktard!

On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 16:04:16 +0000, Eeyore
wrote:



"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
gore wrote:

I work at an electronics contract manufacturimg facility. We do work for
several companies and I wonder why they use different labels on the
schematics and pcb's to refer to IC's. Some of them have a U1, an A1, and
X1, or an IC1. Why do they do this? Is there a standard used to label IC's
in a schematic? Just curious why this is.

X should be a crystal.
A would be an amplifier (I haven't ever seen that btw)
IC is self-explanatory and is widely used in Europe
U is some weird US practice. U for what ? Rumour has it that it meant
'unknown'.

Only outside the USA, by know nothing 'experts'.

The USA represents 5% of the world population.

Graham


Amazing considering what we have brought to the world inside a 200 year
period.

And you dopes had centuries!

So by THAT measure, we are FAR superior to ANY of you dopey ****s!

On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 17:30:05 +0000, Eeyore
wrote:


Which is hardly a pcb component is it ?


You have never seen a daughter assembly that gets plugged into a PWA
assembly, already built up as a module or assembly?

It would be MODXXX or AXXX

You are thick, donktard.

On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 17:39:59 +0000, Eeyore
wrote:



Peter Bennett wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Peter Bennett wrote:
"gore" wrote:

I work at an electronics contract manufacturimg facility. We do work for
several companies and I wonder why they use different labels on the
schematics and pcb's to refer to IC's. Some of them have a U1, an A1, and
X1, or an IC1. Why do they do this? Is there a standard used to label IC's
in a schematic? Just curious why this is.

The standard reference designator for integrated circuits is "U" -
anything else is wrong! ( IMHO :-) )

And what does U stand for ? Probably the stupidest choice ever aside from Q.

Perhaps U = Unit?

That's 2 votes for Unit and one for Unique so far in this thread. I have also
heard Unknown mentioned.

Graham


No, dumb****. Unknown was "mentioned" (read injected into the
discussion by a retard) by YOU, idiot.

I agree with Thompson on this one. They were Unique devices that
contained multiple elements within.

On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 17:41:51 +0000, Eeyore
wrote:



John Fields wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

U is some weird US practice. U for what ?

---
Unit.

And if it's quad part ? QU ? Dual DU ?

Graham


No, idiot. It references the discreet component, not the guts of it,
dip****. To split an IC into segments for schematic representation

So schematically, it would be U1a U1b U1c, etc. and could show up in
any location on the schematic, not one tied to the others.

The layout merely declares the discreet element itself... U1, as it
MUST be in a single location.

You should actually take a course, donkey. Your self taught
expertise... isn't.

On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 11:53:36 -0600, John Fields
wrote:

On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 16:04:16 +0000, Eeyore
wrote:



"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
gore wrote:

I work at an electronics contract manufacturimg facility. We do work for
several companies and I wonder why they use different labels on the
schematics and pcb's to refer to IC's. Some of them have a U1, an A1, and
X1, or an IC1. Why do they do this? Is there a standard used to label IC's
in a schematic? Just curious why this is.

X should be a crystal.
A would be an amplifier (I haven't ever seen that btw)
IC is self-explanatory and is widely used in Europe
U is some weird US practice. U for what ? Rumour has it that it meant
'unknown'.

Only outside the USA, by know nothing 'experts'.

The USA represents 5% of the world population.

---
Yes, and never have so many owed so much to so few.

JF


I think you word things pretty good, John.

You'd probably make a great techno-stand up comic too.

Only scientific joke that only engineers would get.

That is the problem. I can't go out and make people laugh because only
the guys at work know what I am talking about.

On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 18:12:50 +0000, Eeyore
wrote:



Jim Thompson wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
John Fields wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

U is some weird US practice. U for what ?

---
Unit.

And if it's quad part ? QU ? Dual DU ?

U1A, U1B... U1F is how a hex inverter is labeled.

Not on a circuit board it isn't.

Graham

You are truly brainless.

There are NO multi-unit devices that are in a single package that show
up on a layout in more than one location.

They ALL, however, show up on all schematics in multiple locations.

How can you be so thick? You'll never get away with this make it up as
you go ****, boy.

Proof why all Donkeys need a kick in the ass to get them started just
merely walking or getting the **** out of the way.

On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 12:19:01 -0600, John Fields
wrote:

On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 17:41:51 +0000, Eeyore
wrote:



John Fields wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

U is some weird US practice. U for what ?

---
Unit.

And if it's quad part ? QU ? Dual DU ?

Single part: U1

Dual part: U1A, U1B

Quad part: U1A, U1B, U1C, U1D

Easy, huh? BTW, I thought you said once upon a time that you were
conversant in ORCAD.

Have you totally forgotten everything?

JF


I think he lied the whole time.

He saw someone using OrCAD one day.

On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 12:54:39 -0600, John Fields
wrote:

On Sat, 6 Dec 2008 10:00:40 -0800, "RST Engineering \(jw\)"
wrote:


We've developed one that works well for us. R1 is mounted on the cabinet or
chassis. R101 is on the first subassembly (generally a pcb), R201 on the
second subassembly, and so on. I've been asked what happens when you get
past the 9th subassembly and I reply that we are building small aircraft
electronic devices, not locomotives.

---
Why do you top post?

JF


I got put on everyone's **** list for telling this poster to refrain
from top posting.

He is beyond education in the matter. uneducable.

Despite decades of posts other have made here where the conventions and
practices DO get followed, he feels this to be one convention he will
blatantly refuse to follow.

He likely runs red lights whenever he feels like it too.

On Sat, 6 Dec 2008 11:03:36 -0800, "RST Engineering \(jw\)"
wrote:

it makes more sense
to answer immediately after the question.


It is NOT email.

We have posting conventions that 90% seem to have no problem following.

On Sat, 6 Dec 2008 15:17:28 -0500, "Bill Garber"
wrote:


"John Larkin"
wrote in message ...
On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 14:35:22 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

TR for TRansistor. He's the famous Quad 405 amplifier. The 'current dumper'.
http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTri...ad405cirb.html

What a hideous hack!

John


Doesn't the term 'Hack' imply that? ;-)

Bill Garber


Wouldn't "hideous hack" then convey that it is even worse than "hack"
is?

On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 21:28:28 +0000, Eeyore
wrote:



"RST Engineering (jw)" wrote:

---
Why do you top post?

Because in this one, where I am asked a direct question, it makes more sense
to answer immediately after the question. In some where the body of the
message is quite long, it makes more sense to comment directly to that
paragraph inside the body of the message. In some, where it is a general
comment made in oblique reference to something that is said, it makes more
sense to top post as it would look in an original message.

At least you think about it, unlike some degenrate top posters who will post at
the top of 200 lines of text (mostly pointlessly repeated).

Graham


That doesn't make it right.

On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 21:31:30 +0000, Eeyore
wrote:



John Fields wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Tom Del Rosso wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote
John Fields wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
A would be an amplifier (I haven't ever seen that btw)

---
Then how would you know?

Anyway, it's not for 'amplifier, it's for 'assembly'.

Which is hardly a pcb component is it ?

Sure, it could be a smaller board.

IC is self-explanatory and is widely used in Europe
U is some weird US practice. U for what ?
---
Unit.

Terrell disagrees. I have now heard explanations of Unknown, Unique
and Unit !

IC otoh is 100% unambiguous.

U is 100% unambiguous too. It means IC.

Why use another letter when you have 2 that describe the part properly
?

---
Why add another designation when there's absolutely no ambiguity
surrounding the original?

Well if I posted a question in s.e.d asking " Do you know any Us that can
convert frequency to voltage ?" it would looks bloody silly wouldn't it ?

So stick with IC !


You're an idiot if you would use the designators used in a schematic as
the terms one would use in conversation about a circuit or need for a
circuit device.

What you lack is the very most basic grasp of the chain of events
revolving around producing electronic based products.

Your senility has been showing for the last decade. You should have
stayed away from Usenet, as it has exposed you for the dope you are.

On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 21:35:19 +0000, Eeyore
wrote:


Like converting pounds to kg makes sense too ?

When was the last time you ever heard of anyone asking someone for a
certain type of R they need?

Your argument is baseless, Donktard. It is obvious you are just a
"stir the pot" twit, and you aren't even good at that task... at all.

On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 10:51:38 -0800, Archimedes' Lever
wrote:

On Fri, 5 Dec 2008 22:11:43 -0500, "Tom Del Rosso"
wrote:


CR is still common. Is that supposed to be "controlled rectifier" (like in
SCR)?


No. Cathode rectifier.


Wrong again! Crystal Rectifier.

John

On Sat, 6 Dec 2008 15:17:28 -0500, "Bill Garber"
wrote:


"John Larkin"
wrote in message ...
On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 14:35:22 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

TR for TRansistor. He's the famous Quad 405 amplifier. The 'current dumper'.
http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTri...ad405cirb.html

What a hideous hack!

John


Doesn't the term 'Hack' imply that? ;-)

Bill Garber

It's a hack because it's such a stupid, kluged circuit. It's hideous
because of the way it's drawn. And, in the audio world, it's greatly
admired.

John

On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 11:13:45 -0800, Archimedes' Lever
wrote:

On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 17:39:59 +0000, Eeyore
wrote:



Peter Bennett wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Peter Bennett wrote:
"gore" wrote:

I work at an electronics contract manufacturimg facility. We do work for
several companies and I wonder why they use different labels on the
schematics and pcb's to refer to IC's. Some of them have a U1, an A1, and
X1, or an IC1. Why do they do this? Is there a standard used to label IC's
in a schematic? Just curious why this is.

The standard reference designator for integrated circuits is "U" -
anything else is wrong! ( IMHO :-) )

And what does U stand for ? Probably the stupidest choice ever aside from Q.

Perhaps U = Unit?

That's 2 votes for Unit and one for Unique so far in this thread. I have also
heard Unknown mentioned.

Graham


No, dumb****. Unknown was "mentioned" (read injected into the
discussion by a retard) by YOU, idiot.

I agree with Thompson on this one. They were Unique devices that
contained multiple elements within.

U = Unit, a non-repairable gadget that may or might not have
sub-elements within, like an IC or a potted HV supply.

A = Assembly, a gadget with sub-components that can potentially be
repaired. In a fully documented MIL system, any "A" device is expected
to have its own BOM, but a U device doesn't.

John

On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 11:52:54 -0800, Archimedes' Lever
wrote:

On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 12:54:39 -0600, John Fields
wrote:

On Sat, 6 Dec 2008 10:00:40 -0800, "RST Engineering \(jw\)"
wrote:


We've developed one that works well for us. R1 is mounted on the cabinet or
chassis. R101 is on the first subassembly (generally a pcb), R201 on the
second subassembly, and so on. I've been asked what happens when you get
past the 9th subassembly and I reply that we are building small aircraft
electronic devices, not locomotives.

---
Why do you top post?

JF


I got put on everyone's **** list for telling this poster to refrain
from top posting.

He is beyond education in the matter. uneducable.

Despite decades of posts other have made here where the conventions and
practices DO get followed, he feels this to be one convention he will
blatantly refuse to follow.

He likely runs red lights whenever he feels like it too.

I could respond to him, and even help sometimes, but his stubborn
top-posting puts me off.

John