On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 14:01:10 -0800, John Larkin
wrote:

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


I like how in the seventies and eighties, the THD figure was the big
item that demarked worthy devices that drove speakers (amplifiers).

Now, it is all about the number of devices which can be attached to
them and by the number of codecs they can handle correctly. The
distortion figure is available usually on their web site, but all
commercial sights that sell such products hardly ever declare these specs
any more, as if we no longer care. It shows that they have gotten so
good at amplifier design that they no longer even need to worry about
showing the specs.

I still hunt them up before I make a choice.

Bang for buck, and good, decades old engineering, I go with Pioneer.
I know there is better, but those also come with prohibitive pricing.

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 !


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


No. It shows how little you know. The CE mark, as used properly to
designate "CE compliance", has a font and other specifications. HOWEVER,
the fact that there is such a mark means that the electronics industry
refrains from using the letter pair "CE" as any kind of reference
designator in electronic schematic representations as well.

Indeed, it shows just how little you know about whys and wherefores,
not to mention facts.

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.

Graham


No... That would be you, DonkTard.

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
m...

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.


Would that be the "amateurs and idiots" that gave you centimetric radar and
the jet engine to name but a couple?

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
m...

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.


Actually, I didn't. The British designs were something they
couldn't build, so why brag about being so incompetent?

Radio, RADAR and electronics, in general was a new field, so lots of
designs were worthless mental exercises withiout the knowledge to round
off the rough edges and make the damn things work.?


We had H2S up and running before America copied it and called it H2X.

Our radars were working just fine - all we needed was US manufacturing
capacity to meet the demands of the war effort.

Also in the post war years the US bought significant numbers of British jet
engines because they couldn't get their own prototypes working properly.

"John Larkin" wrote in message
...
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


His cathode (possibly catheter) needed rectifying.

On Sun, 7 Dec 2008 20:59:43 -0000, "ian field"
wrote:


"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
om...

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.


Would that be the "amateurs and idiots" that gave you centimetric radar and
the jet engine to name but a couple?

Strange. I thought the Nazis had the first jet.

Regardless, it was US naming conventions that were followed for so many
decades. It was nay sayers that caused any ambiguity in what could have
been just one more small segment of one's learning process. Just like
the RoHS crap. We arrived at the best, most economical solder alloy
DECADES ago! Change was the LAST thing we needed.

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


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


I have a suspicion its European - maybe German or Dutch. But I've no idea
what if any word its the first letter of.

"John Fields" wrote in message
...
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

We paid off our lend-lease debt months ago!

On Sun, 7 Dec 2008 21:07:26 -0000, "ian field"
wrote:


"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
om...

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.


Actually, I didn't. The British designs were something they
couldn't build, so why brag about being so incompetent?

Radio, RADAR and electronics, in general was a new field, so lots of
designs were worthless mental exercises withiout the knowledge to round
off the rough edges and make the damn things work.?


We had H2S up and running before America copied it and called it H2X.

Our radars were working just fine - all we needed was US manufacturing
capacity to meet the demands of the war effort.

Glad we could help.

Also in the post war years the US bought significant numbers of British jet
engines because they couldn't get their own prototypes working properly.


And now we are superior in both radars and jet engines. We were merely
underbid for the F-35 units. So P&W got it. Yet another hit to our
economy. There should have been a dual fitting where either maker could
supply units. Then, I think P&W got bought by a US maker, no?

I remember seeing o-scopes in the eighties that could look down into the
combustors of P&W engines because they were prone to cracking (and
exploding), and the old inspection way was a near complete tear down. We
made those o-scopes and saved them a lot of money. Something about
engines blowing up on the runway...

GE engines can eat two tons of turkeys and keep going. They take a
pickin' and keep on kickin'. Put that in your phased array and SUCK IT
UP! Oh... that;s right... phased array is OURS too!

On Sun, 7 Dec 2008 21:09:47 -0000, "ian field"
wrote:


"John Larkin" wrote in message
.. .
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


His cathode (possibly catheter) needed rectifying.

You're a goddamned retard.

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 5 Dec 2008 19:33:40 -0500, "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 ?


Some very old diagrams used Q for crystal and in the very early days a
transistor was often referred to as a "crystal triode".

"Archimedes' Lever" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 7 Dec 2008 21:07:26 -0000, "ian field"
wrote:


"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
news:nt6dneuR4o6STKfUnZ2dnUVZ_vCdnZ2d@earthlink. com...

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.


Actually, I didn't. The British designs were something they
couldn't build, so why brag about being so incompetent?

Radio, RADAR and electronics, in general was a new field, so lots of
designs were worthless mental exercises withiout the knowledge to round
off the rough edges and make the damn things work.?


We had H2S up and running before America copied it and called it H2X.

Our radars were working just fine - all we needed was US manufacturing
capacity to meet the demands of the war effort.

Glad we could help.

Also in the post war years the US bought significant numbers of British
jet
engines because they couldn't get their own prototypes working properly.


And now we are superior in both radars and jet engines.

A few years back there was almost an international incident as the US
stealth bomber arrived at a British airshow - the RAF had a steady missile
lock as soon as it came over the horizon.

The USAF crew were clearly not amused!

Yanks are good at claiming the glory - we're even better at keeping our
secret technology a secret.

"Archimedes' Lever" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 7 Dec 2008 20:59:43 -0000, "ian field"
wrote:


"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
news:FLednf1zIrCe3qfUnZ2dnUVZ_uidnZ2d@earthlink. com...

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.


Would that be the "amateurs and idiots" that gave you centimetric radar
and
the jet engine to name but a couple?

Strange. I thought the Nazis had the first jet.


Hitler threw every possible resource into the rapid development of new
secret weapons so the ME-262 was nowhere near as long in development as the
Whittle powered Glosters.

The single engined Gloster Whittle was almost certainly before the 262, but
the air ministry wanted a twin engined fighter so there was further delay
while the Gloster Meteor was developed and put into production - luckily
Hitler wasted a year arguing with his generals whether the 262 should be a
bomber instead of an interceptor.

Whether the Nazi jet was first is hotly argued, but in any case we had
several piston engined fighter types that could catch and shoot down the
ME-262, the Gloster fighter was not cleared to cross the channel for fear of
the technology being captured so there weren't many jet/jet dogfights.

"ValleyGirl" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 7 Dec 2008 21:09:47 -0000, "ian field"
wrote:


"John Larkin" wrote in
message
. ..
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


His cathode (possibly catheter) needed rectifying.

You're a goddamned retard.



http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=SjxY9rZwNGU

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=39qdhbkTko4

ian field wrote:

A few years back there was almost an international incident as the US
stealth bomber arrived at a British airshow - the RAF had a steady missile
lock as soon as it came over the horizon.

The USAF crew were clearly not amused!

Yanks are good at claiming the glory - we're even better at keeping our
secret technology a secret.

It was BAe Systems. The Americans hadn't imagined you could do an IR version of
radar ! It's also the reason you have to use them at night or you'll get visual
lock.

Graham

On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 13:31:59 -0800, Archimedes' Lever
wrote:



And now we are superior in both radars and jet engines. We were merely
underbid for the F-35 units. So P&W got it. Yet another hit to our
economy. There should have been a dual fitting where either maker could
supply units. Then, I think P&W got bought by a US maker, no?

Pratt&Whitney was founded in Hartford, Connecticut in 1860 and has
been building aircraft engines since 1925. They are now a division of
United Technologies, a very US company. UT also owns Carrier (the HVAC
people), Sikorsky Helicopter, Otis Elevator, PW Canada, and Hamilton
Sundstrand.

http://www.pratt-whitney.com/vgn-ext...000881000aRCRD

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26_Whitney#History

UTC is the grand-daddy of Boeing and United Airlines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...es_Corporation


Always Wrong!

John

On Sun, 7 Dec 2008 21:19:34 -0000, "ian field"
wrote:


"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


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


I have a suspicion its European - maybe German or Dutch. But I've no idea
what if any word its the first letter of.


U = Unit. A unit is an inseparable (ie, non-repairable) subassembly.


Feel free to name any devices that you invent.

John

On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 12:35:26 -0800, Archimedes' Lever
wrote:

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 !


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


No. It shows how little you know. The CE mark, as used properly to
designate "CE compliance", has a font and other specifications. HOWEVER,
the fact that there is such a mark means that the electronics industry
refrains from using the letter pair "CE" as any kind of reference
designator in electronic schematic representations as well.

Indeed, it shows just how little you know about whys and wherefores,
not to mention facts.


The letters CE actually stand for Can't Enforce.

John

ian field wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
m...

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.


Would that be the "amateurs and idiots" that gave you centimetric radar and
the jet engine to name but a couple?


They didn't 'GIVE' us anything.


--
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.

ian field wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


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


I have a suspicion its European - maybe German or Dutch. But I've no idea
what if any word its the first letter of.


Once again, you're trying to take credit you don't deserve.


--
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.

ian field wrote:

"John Fields" wrote in message
...
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

We paid off our lend-lease debt months ago!


Over 40 years late?


--
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.

ian field wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
m...

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.


Actually, I didn't. The British designs were something they
couldn't build, so why brag about being so incompetent?

Radio, RADAR and electronics, in general was a new field, so lots of
designs were worthless mental exercises withiout the knowledge to round
off the rough edges and make the damn things work.?


We had H2S up and running before America copied it and called it H2X.

Our radars were working just fine - all we needed was US manufacturing
capacity to meet the demands of the war effort.


Designs you can't build are worthless.


Also in the post war years the US bought significant numbers of British jet
engines because they couldn't get their own prototypes working properly.


--
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, 7 Dec 2008 21:31:15 -0000, "ian field"
wrote:


"John Fields" wrote in message
.. .
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

We paid off our lend-lease debt months ago!

---
Indeed you did, and did yourselves proud in the bargain!

AFAIK, not once did you renege, or stall, and I congratulate you on your
steadfastness.

JF

On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 19:22:45 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


ian field wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
m...

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.


Actually, I didn't. The British designs were something they
couldn't build, so why brag about being so incompetent?

Radio, RADAR and electronics, in general was a new field, so lots of
designs were worthless mental exercises withiout the knowledge to round
off the rough edges and make the damn things work.?


We had H2S up and running before America copied it and called it H2X.

Our radars were working just fine - all we needed was US manufacturing
capacity to meet the demands of the war effort.


Designs you can't build are worthless.



The brits didn't do a lot of development of microwave radar, aside
from inventing the cavity magnetron. Most radar development was done
at the MIT RadLab, assisted by US industry, inventing modern
electronics in the process.

Radar wasn't a unique invention. The US, Germany, and Japan were
working on radar before the war, and all deployed radars of various
quality during the war. The US radars were stunningly better than any
others, for lots of reasons. Even during the war, we were using PPI
radars that had ranges better than half the theoretical limits and
stunning resolution. US ships sank enemy ships and subs that they
never actually saw. The proximity fuze improved the effectiveness of
antiaircraft guns and artillery by 1-2 orders of magnitude.

Also in the post war years the US bought significant numbers of British jet
engines because they couldn't get their own prototypes working properly.

The German ones were better.

John

On Sun, 7 Dec 2008 21:52:26 -0000, "ian field"
wrote:


"Archimedes' Lever" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 7 Dec 2008 21:07:26 -0000, "ian field"
wrote:


"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
news:nt6dneuR4o6STKfUnZ2dnUVZ_vCdnZ2d@earthlink .com...

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.


Actually, I didn't. The British designs were something they
couldn't build, so why brag about being so incompetent?

Radio, RADAR and electronics, in general was a new field, so lots of
designs were worthless mental exercises withiout the knowledge to round
off the rough edges and make the damn things work.?


We had H2S up and running before America copied it and called it H2X.

Our radars were working just fine - all we needed was US manufacturing
capacity to meet the demands of the war effort.

Glad we could help.

Also in the post war years the US bought significant numbers of British
jet
engines because they couldn't get their own prototypes working properly.


And now we are superior in both radars and jet engines.

A few years back there was almost an international incident as the US
stealth bomber arrived at a British airshow - the RAF had a steady missile
lock as soon as it came over the horizon.

The USAF crew were clearly not amused!

Yanks are good at claiming the glory - we're even better at keeping our
secret technology a secret.

---
I'm sure that if it was at an airshow, when our arrival time was surely
known ahead of time, it wouldn't have been hard to resolve the B-B
against a fairly noise-free environment.

In any case, it gave you an opportunity to try out your anti-stealth
stuff, yes?

JF

On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 21:36:48 +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!

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

Graham

You'll have trouble there. He's off on a dirty weekend with his
sheepfriend. :-)

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
m...

ian field wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
m...

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.


Actually, I didn't. The British designs were something they
couldn't build, so why brag about being so incompetent?

Radio, RADAR and electronics, in general was a new field, so lots of
designs were worthless mental exercises withiout the knowledge to round
off the rough edges and make the damn things work.?


We had H2S up and running before America copied it and called it H2X.

Our radars were working just fine - all we needed was US manufacturing
capacity to meet the demands of the war effort.


Designs you can't build are worthless.


We could build them no problem - just not enough fast enough for the war
effort.

ian field wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
m...

ian field wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
m...

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.


Actually, I didn't. The British designs were something they
couldn't build, so why brag about being so incompetent?

Radio, RADAR and electronics, in general was a new field, so lots of
designs were worthless mental exercises withiout the knowledge to round
off the rough edges and make the damn things work.?


We had H2S up and running before America copied it and called it H2X.

Our radars were working just fine - all we needed was US manufacturing
capacity to meet the demands of the war effort.


Designs you can't build are worthless.


We could build them no problem - just not enough fast enough for the war
effort.


Still, you weren't up to the task. Just like Penicillin.


--
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.

Pomegranate ******* wrote:

On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 21:36:48 +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!

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

Graham

You'll have trouble there. He's off on a dirty weekend with his
sheepfriend. :-)


That never lasts. Only long enough for the sheep to figure out what
he wants.


--
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.

"John Larkin" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 19:22:45 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


ian field wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
m...

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.


Actually, I didn't. The British designs were something they
couldn't build, so why brag about being so incompetent?

Radio, RADAR and electronics, in general was a new field, so lots of
designs were worthless mental exercises withiout the knowledge to
round
off the rough edges and make the damn things work.?


We had H2S up and running before America copied it and called it H2X.

Our radars were working just fine - all we needed was US manufacturing
capacity to meet the demands of the war effort.


Designs you can't build are worthless.



The brits didn't do a lot of development of microwave radar, aside
from inventing the cavity magnetron. Most radar development was done
at the MIT RadLab, assisted by US industry, inventing modern
electronics in the process.

Radar wasn't a unique invention. The US, Germany, and Japan were
working on radar before the war, and all deployed radars of various
quality during the war. The US radars were stunningly better than any
others, for lots of reasons. Even during the war, we were using PPI
radars that had ranges better than half the theoretical limits and
stunning resolution. US ships sank enemy ships and subs that they
never actually saw. The proximity fuze improved the effectiveness of
antiaircraft guns and artillery by 1-2 orders of magnitude.

Also in the post war years the US bought significant numbers of British
jet
engines because they couldn't get their own prototypes working properly.

The German ones were better.

John


Having downloaded a huge quantity of aircraft e-books I'm not reading
anywhere that the US imported German jet engines in the post war years, it
was always British engines when the US couldn't get their own going -
although TBF the US did go the honest route most of the time and build under
license instead of outright ripping off the design like some other countries
did.

Right up to WW2 the US aviation industry was living in the dark ages - most
manufacturers were still tarting up old biplane designs with enclosed
canopies and retractable landing gear. When the US finally wised up and
started making monoplanes they were struggling to get speed more than 250mph
while European fighters were typically capable of speed between 300 & 400
mph and were a lot more manoeuvrable - even the Russians had a fighter that
was a generation ahead of any US fighter, and the war was pretty much over
by the time the US had anything quick enough to escape from a Jap Zero.

The most famous US fighter, the P51 Mustang was actually designed to
specifications laid out by the British air ministry. Originally the ministry
asked NAA to license build a few P40s, after negotiations it was agreed that
NAA would design a new aircraft from scratch but incorporating the features
of the P40 that the ministry wanted. The US top brass showed no interest in
the new aircraft until someone had the bright idea of upgrading it with a
Rolls Royce Merlin engine and turning it into a real winner. As usual a
British engine went into licence build mass production in the US - by
several manufacturers such was the demand for the superior engine.

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
m...

ian field wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


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


I have a suspicion its European - maybe German or Dutch. But I've no idea
what if any word its the first letter of.


Once again, you're trying to take credit you don't deserve.


Eh?!

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
m

Still, you weren't up to the task. Just like Penicillin.

So what? For production, size matters.

When did we have a better ally than Britain? They have less will to commit
large forces than we do, but more than any other ally.


--

Reply in group, but if emailing add one more
zero, and remove the last word.

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
m...

ian field wrote:

"John Fields" wrote in message
...
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

We paid off our lend-lease debt months ago!


Over 40 years late?


It was an exceedingly huge debt to exceedingly greedy fat cat capitalists.

ian field wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
m...

ian field wrote:

"John Fields" wrote in message
...
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

We paid off our lend-lease debt months ago!


Over 40 years late?


It was an exceedingly huge debt to exceedingly greedy fat cat capitalists.


Ok, remember that the next time you want to save your sorry asses.


--
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.

Tom Del Rosso wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
m

Still, you weren't up to the task. Just like Penicillin.

So what? For production, size matters.

When did we have a better ally than Britain? They have less will to commit
large forces than we do, but more than any other ally.


Their egos are larger than their grasp.


--
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.

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
m...

Tom Del Rosso wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
m

Still, you weren't up to the task. Just like Penicillin.

So what? For production, size matters.

When did we have a better ally than Britain? They have less will to
commit
large forces than we do, but more than any other ally.


Their egos are larger than their grasp.


That remark would be true were it directed at Americans.

"flipper" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 17:17:17 -0000, "ian field"
wrote:


"John Larkin" wrote in
message
. ..
On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 19:22:45 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


ian field wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
m...

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.


Actually, I didn't. The British designs were something they
couldn't build, so why brag about being so incompetent?

Radio, RADAR and electronics, in general was a new field, so lots
of
designs were worthless mental exercises withiout the knowledge to
round
off the rough edges and make the damn things work.?


We had H2S up and running before America copied it and called it H2X.

Our radars were working just fine - all we needed was US manufacturing
capacity to meet the demands of the war effort.


Designs you can't build are worthless.



The brits didn't do a lot of development of microwave radar, aside
from inventing the cavity magnetron. Most radar development was done
at the MIT RadLab, assisted by US industry, inventing modern
electronics in the process.

Radar wasn't a unique invention. The US, Germany, and Japan were
working on radar before the war, and all deployed radars of various
quality during the war. The US radars were stunningly better than any
others, for lots of reasons. Even during the war, we were using PPI
radars that had ranges better than half the theoretical limits and
stunning resolution. US ships sank enemy ships and subs that they
never actually saw. The proximity fuze improved the effectiveness of
antiaircraft guns and artillery by 1-2 orders of magnitude.

Also in the post war years the US bought significant numbers of
British
jet
engines because they couldn't get their own prototypes working
properly.

The German ones were better.

John


Having downloaded a huge quantity of aircraft e-books I'm not reading
anywhere that the US imported German jet engines in the post war years, it
was always British engines when the US couldn't get their own going -
although TBF the US did go the honest route most of the time and build
under
license instead of outright ripping off the design like some other
countries
did.

Right up to WW2 the US aviation industry was living in the dark ages -
most
manufacturers were still tarting up old biplane designs with enclosed
canopies and retractable landing gear. When the US finally wised up and
started making monoplanes they were struggling to get speed more than
250mph
while European fighters were typically capable of speed between 300 & 400
mph and were a lot more manoeuvrable - even the Russians had a fighter
that
was a generation ahead of any US fighter, and the war was pretty much over
by the time the US had anything quick enough to escape from a Jap Zero.

The most famous US fighter, the P51 Mustang was actually designed to
specifications laid out by the British air ministry. Originally the
ministry
asked NAA to license build a few P40s, after negotiations it was agreed
that
NAA would design a new aircraft from scratch but incorporating the
features
of the P40 that the ministry wanted. The US top brass showed no interest
in
the new aircraft until someone had the bright idea of upgrading it with a
Rolls Royce Merlin engine and turning it into a real winner. As usual a
British engine went into licence build mass production in the US - by
several manufacturers such was the demand for the superior engine.


Oh horse manure. Even the P-40 did 360.


Exactly why the British aircraft ministry wanted license built P40s - most
of the others were dinosaurs.

ian field wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
m...

Tom Del Rosso wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
m

Still, you weren't up to the task. Just like Penicillin.

So what? For production, size matters.

When did we have a better ally than Britain? They have less will to
commit
large forces than we do, but more than any other ally.


Their egos are larger than their grasp.


That remark would be true were it directed at Americans.


Yawn.


--
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.

Mike ...

I'm not taking sides on this one, but just remember that it is one hell of a
lot easier to do R&D and production when you have a 3000 mile buffer between
you and the folks who are bombing the bejesus out of you day and night.

On BOTH sides of the continent.

Jim

Ok, remember that the next time you want to save your sorry asses.