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

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


There probably _is_ a standard, but it was probably devised by some
committee of cretins sitting for the IEEE, so it's generally ignored.

The schematic representation doesn't matter anyway.

What matters is how the "template" for the part is seen by the
simulator, for instance...

Schematic Simulator

U1 X_U1
A1 X_A1

etc... ("parts" are either devices, Q, R, L, C, M, D... or
subcircuits, X...)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine Sometimes I even put it in the food

"gore" wrote in message
...
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.

U is quite common for ICs. X ought to be a crystal, typically. IC1 is
probably from some smaller design house where they're making up their own
standard as they go along (they probably also use, e.g., LED1...).

There is no universal standard, although growing companies often decide at
some point to go out and review some documented choices, such as what the IPC
recommends.

"gore"

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.


** Like many things in the wide world of electronics, there are common
conventions that apply but no universal standard exists.

So folk in different places and in various companies do what seems logical
to them.




...... Phil

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

Q = transistor

D = diode (CR is archaic)

T = transformer

L = inductor

A = assembly

R = resistor (all kinds)

C = capacitor (ditto)

P, J are connectors

B = battery

F = fuse

K = relay

S = switch

V = tube


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


John

"John Larkin" wrote in
message

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)?

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


--

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

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


"John Larkin" wrote in
message

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.


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

Q.

John

[1] a dynamotor is a rotating dc-dc converter.

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 !

Graham

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.


--
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 Sat, 06 Dec 2008 08:29:53 +0000, 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 !

---
Well, no ****, Sherlock?

JF

Tom Del Rosso wrote:

"John Larkin" wrote in

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)?

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

SCR. Since a Triac is bilateral SCR, you could presumably use that too.

I also forgot LD or LED = light emitting diode.

Graham

Eeyore wrote:

Tom Del Rosso wrote:

"John Larkin" wrote in

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)?

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

SCR. Since a Triac is bilateral SCR, you could presumably use that too.

I also forgot LD or LED = light emitting diode.


No, LED = Lie Emmiting Donkey.

--
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 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 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

"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.

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 ?

I also use CD = decoupling capacitor to distinguish from a capacitor 'in
circuit'.

Also RT = thermistor.

Graham

Eeyore wrote:

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 ?

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.



I also use CD = decoupling capacitor to distinguish from a capacitor 'in
circuit'.

Also RT = thermistor.

Graham


--
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:

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 ?

Graham

On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 16:02:24 +0000, 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?


JF

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.


Your replies are all particularly STUPID responses, and we expect no
more from you.


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

Graham


--
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.

flipper wrote:

ANSI, however, does assign them.

ANSI is totally IRRELEVANT. Of its own stupidity.

Graham

On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 04:19:03 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Eeyore wrote:

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 ?

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.



I also use CD = decoupling capacitor to distinguish from a capacitor 'in
circuit'.

Also RT = thermistor.

Graham

I justify my use of mil-std reference designators by the fact that
using arbitrary junk would convince my scientific and aerospace
customers that I'm an amateur who is ignorant of industry standards. I
really wouldn't want that to happen.

You may as well scatter parts around on a layout at odd arbitrary
angles, or use florid gothic script on orange front panels. Or invent
your own revision and ECO standards. Mount heatsinks with duct tape.
Send any messages you like.

John

John Larkin wrote:

On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 04:19:03 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Eeyore wrote:

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 ?

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.



I also use CD = decoupling capacitor to distinguish from a capacitor 'in
circuit'.

Also RT = thermistor.

Graham

I justify my use of mil-std reference designators by the fact that
using arbitrary junk would convince my scientific and aerospace
customers that I'm an amateur who is ignorant of industry standards. I
really wouldn't want that to happen.


Who in their right mind would expect to sell to NASA, NOAA, and the
US military or the aerospace industry, using crap designators like the
dumbass donkey does? Of course, his target market was burnt out
druggies, running crappy sound systems.


You may as well scatter parts around on a layout at odd arbitrary
angles, or use florid gothic script on orange front panels. Or invent
your own revision and ECO standards. Mount heatsinks with duct tape.
Send any messages you like.


I agree 100%, John. In fact, I still have a copy of the Microdyne
design reference manual around here somewhere, and it uses US & NATO
military designations. It was written in the early '70s, and was still
the design bible when L3-Com bought them out in 2000.


--
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.

"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".

On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 21:42:45 +0000, ian field wrote:

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


Even weirder, the current IEC designator for all semiconductors is "V".

I once asked a TV repair bloke if he could provide me with a 4.33MHz
crystal. He looked at me blankly, then said "Oh! You mean an extal!".

--
Mick (Working in a M$-free zone!)
Web: http://www.nascom.info
Filtering everything posted from googlegroups to kill spam.

On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 19:36:29 GMT, mick wrote:

On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 21:42:45 +0000, ian field wrote:

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


Even weirder, the current IEC designator for all semiconductors is "V".

---
No doubt because they're valves.

JF

On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 21:42:45 +0000, ian field wrote:

"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".


So, U isn't a semiconductor; it's a variable speed drive. Should be fun
trying to PCB mount something like that in a DIL16. :-)

Commonly used in Europe and Australia - according to wikipedia:

* A: Assemblies
* B: Transducers (photo cells, inductive proximity, thermocouple,
flame detection)
* C: Capacitors
* D: Storage devices
* E: Miscellaneous
* F: Fuses
* G: Generator, battery pack
* H: Indicators, lamps (not for illumination), signalling devices
* K: Relays, contactors
* L: Inductors and filters
* M: Motors
* N: Analogue devices
* P: Measuring/test equipment
* Q: Circuit breakers, isolators, re-closers
* R: Resistors, brake resistors
* S: Switches, push buttons, emergency stops and limit switches
* T: Transformers
* U: Power converters, variable speed drives, soft starters, DC power
supplies
* V: Semiconductors
* W: Wires, conductors, power, neutral and earthing busses
* X: Terminal strips, terminations, joins
* Y: Solenoids, electrical actuators
* Z: Filters

--
Mick (Working in a M$-free zone!)
Web: http://www.nascom.info
Filtering everything posted from googlegroups to kill spam.

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 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


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


--
Peter Bennett, VE7CEI
peterbb4 (at) interchange.ubc.ca
GPS and NMEA info: http://vancouver-webpages.com/peter
Vancouver Power Squadron: http://vancouver.powersquadron.ca

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

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.


Sigh. Do ANY of your neurons work? It was another available letter,
and used to identify the 'Unique' integrated circuits.


--
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:

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.

Sigh. Do ANY of your neurons work? It was another available letter,
and used to identify the 'Unique' integrated circuits.

Again, what a stupid answer.

Graham

Eeyore wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" 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.

Sigh. Do ANY of your neurons work? It was another available letter,
and used to identify the 'Unique' integrated circuits.

Again, what a stupid answer.


I had to throw you a bone, dumbass.



--
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 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 ?

---
Unit.
---

Probably the stupidest choice ever aside from Q.

---
No doubt the likes of you would have used 'T'.

JF

John Fields 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 ?

---
Unit.
---

Probably the stupidest choice ever aside from Q.

---
No doubt the likes of you would have used 'T'.

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

Graham

Eeyore wrote:

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


It could also be confused with (TR)ansformer, dumbass.


--
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 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

Perhaps U = Unit?


--
Peter Bennett, VE7CEI
peterbb4 (at) interchange.ubc.ca
GPS and NMEA info: http://vancouver-webpages.com/peter
Vancouver Power Squadron: http://vancouver.powersquadron.ca

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

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.

---
Where?

JF

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.