Aside from posting in GIF format, is there any preferred format for posting
editable schematics? I've been using Eagle 5 professional from cadsoft usa.
There is a freeware version with some limitations but might be worth a look.
http://www.cadsoftusa.com/freeware.htm
Nice thing is that any libraries used are incorporated into the schematic
file. Posting an Eagle schematic by itself should open without any support
files.
Any thoughts? I would propose that any schematics posted in a proprietary
format should be accompanied by either a PDF or GIF export.
Oppie

In article ,
"Oppie" wrote:

Any thoughts? I would propose that any schematics posted in a proprietary
format should be accompanied by either a PDF or GIF export.

GIF or PDF should be viewable by 99.999% of this group. Why
bother posting a proprietary format?

--
Fred Lotte

"Fred Lotte" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Oppie" wrote:

Any thoughts? I would propose that any schematics posted in a proprietary
format should be accompanied by either a PDF or GIF export.

GIF or PDF should be viewable by 99.999% of this group. Why
bother posting a proprietary format?

GIF or PDF are great to illustrate a concept. I was just wondering if it was
worth using a popular schematic capture format...
Probably not since there are so many incompatible forms out there.

"Oppie" wrote in message
...
GIF or PDF are great to illustrate a concept. I was just wondering if it was
worth using a popular schematic capture format...
Probably not since there are so many incompatible forms out there.

LTspice is popular since it's freely available and the netlist format is
ASCII.

Oppie wrote:

Aside from posting in GIF format, is there any preferred format for posting
editable schematics?

Editable. GIF's hardly going to readily editable.

Schematics ? Well, Gerber would be great for PCBs but I can't think of a
universal format for schematics.

Netlist ?

Graham

Oppie wrote:

"Fred Lotte" wrote in message
"Oppie" wrote:

Any thoughts? I would propose that any schematics posted in a proprietary
format should be accompanied by either a PDF or GIF export.

GIF or PDF should be viewable by 99.999% of this group. Why
bother posting a proprietary format?

GIF or PDF are great to illustrate a concept. I was just wondering if it was
worth using a popular schematic capture format...
Probably not since there are so many incompatible forms out there.

That's exactly the problem. EDIF never did take off.

Graham

Joel Koltner wrote:

"Oppie" wrote

GIF or PDF are great to illustrate a concept. I was just wondering if it was
worth using a popular schematic capture format...
Probably not since there are so many incompatible forms out there.

LTspice is popular since it's freely available and the netlist format is
ASCII.

How does it deal with custom ( i.e. non-LTspice ) parts ?

I have to say I would be great if there was a schematic version of Gerber so to
speak.

Graham

On Mon, 11 May 2009 09:22:08 -0400, "Oppie"
wrote:

Aside from posting in GIF format, is there any preferred format for posting
editable schematics? I've been using Eagle 5 professional from cadsoft usa.
There is a freeware version with some limitations but might be worth a look.
http://www.cadsoftusa.com/freeware.htm
Nice thing is that any libraries used are incorporated into the schematic
file. Posting an Eagle schematic by itself should open without any support
files.
Any thoughts? I would propose that any schematics posted in a proprietary
format should be accompanied by either a PDF or GIF export.
Oppie

That might be of some use if one were collaborating on a design with a
colleague, for instance. In that case you'd probably be using Email
so no advantage - UNLESS "everybody" happens to be using Eagle . . .

If one is not collaborating, and Eagle isn't universal, there seems to
be no advantage to double posting.

I guess the real question is how many people on Usenet schematics are
also using Eagle?

For me . . . I enjoy seeing what others design, but never (so far) use
their designs.
--

On Mon, 11 May 2009 09:22:08 -0400, "Oppie"
wrote:

Aside from posting in GIF format, is there any preferred format for posting
editable schematics? I've been using Eagle 5 professional from cadsoft usa.
There is a freeware version with some limitations but might be worth a look.
http://www.cadsoftusa.com/freeware.htm
Nice thing is that any libraries used are incorporated into the schematic
file. Posting an Eagle schematic by itself should open without any support
files.
Any thoughts? I would propose that any schematics posted in a proprietary
format should be accompanied by either a PDF or GIF export.
Oppie

The LT Spice ascii netlist is popular, and can alos be posted on
text-only groups. It's as close to a universal schematic format as it
gets.

John

On Tue, 12 May 2009 19:24:33 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:


I have to say I would be great if there was a schematic version of Gerber so to
speak.

---
It would take a lot more than that!

JF

On Tue, 12 May 2009 19:24:33 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



Joel Koltner wrote:

"Oppie" wrote

GIF or PDF are great to illustrate a concept. I was just wondering if it was
worth using a popular schematic capture format...
Probably not since there are so many incompatible forms out there.

LTspice is popular since it's freely available and the netlist format is
ASCII.

How does it deal with custom ( i.e. non-LTspice ) parts ?

I have to say I would be great if there was a schematic version of Gerber so to
speak.

Graham

So, since there isn't does that mean that you are not great?

Eeyore wrote:
I have to say I would be great if there was a schematic version of
Gerber so to speak.

Archimedes' Lever replied:
So, since there isn't does that mean that you are not great?

No, since there isn't one, he can be either great or not great. Only
if there was one and he wasn't great would his statement not hold.

On 12 May 2009 20:53:06 -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:


Eeyore wrote:
I have to say I would be great if there was a schematic version of
Gerber so to speak.

Archimedes' Lever replied:
So, since there isn't does that mean that you are not great?

No, since there isn't one, he can be either great or not great. Only
if there was one and he wasn't great would his statement not hold.

True. Unless the meaning of "if there was" considered the result as a
binary entity, either great or not great. Since his remark makes no
complete qualification, you are correct. But since I was merely making a
joke, it was as if only a binary outcome was available.

Eeyore wrote:

How does it deal with custom ( i.e. non-LTspice ) parts ?

I have to say I would be great if there was a schematic version of Gerber so to
speak.


You will never be great outside of your head, so don't let it worry
you.


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense!

"Archimedes' Lever" wrote in message
...
On 12 May 2009 20:53:06 -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:


Eeyore wrote:
I have to say I would be great if there was a schematic version of
Gerber so to speak.

Archimedes' Lever replied:
So, since there isn't does that mean that you are not great?

No, since there isn't one, he can be either great or not great. Only
if there was one and he wasn't great would his statement not hold.

True. Unless the meaning of "if there was" considered the result as a
binary entity, either great or not great. Since his remark makes no
complete qualification, you are correct. But since I was merely making a
joke, it was as if only a binary outcome was available.

You are clearly the smartest person here and now should seek your next
level.

On Fri, 15 May 2009 21:55:59 -0400, "Charles"
wrote:


"Archimedes' Lever" wrote in message
.. .
On 12 May 2009 20:53:06 -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:


Eeyore wrote:
I have to say I would be great if there was a schematic version of
Gerber so to speak.

Archimedes' Lever replied:
So, since there isn't does that mean that you are not great?

No, since there isn't one, he can be either great or not great. Only
if there was one and he wasn't great would his statement not hold.

True. Unless the meaning of "if there was" considered the result as a
binary entity, either great or not great. Since his remark makes no
complete qualification, you are correct. But since I was merely making a
joke, it was as if only a binary outcome was available.

You are clearly the smartest person here and now should seek your next
level.

"if there was" kind of is a binary outcome, or at least infers one, so he
did qualify it.

Fred Abse wrote:

On Tue, 12 May 2009 19:24:33 +0100, Eeyore wrote:

How does it deal with custom ( i.e. non-LTspice ) parts ?

It reads PSpice lib files no problem.

Spice3 models are pretty ubiquitous, from most major manufacturers. They
run no problem.

The manual details how to create your own custom symbols.

LTSpice is probably the least "proprietary" Spice around. It won't save
you from yourself, bu neither will any other simulator.

I'm surprised you didn't know all that.

Well, I took a look at it once and didn't find it intuitive to use.

Graham

On Sun, 17 May 2009 09:22:18 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Sun, 17 May 2009 02:14:39 -0700, Fred Abse
wrote:

On Sat, 16 May 2009 19:48:20 +0100, Eeyore wrote:

Well, I took a look at it once and didn't find it intuitive to use.

Draw the circuit, plug in the values and crank out the results. How much
more intuitive can you get?

You've stated broad goals that apply to any simulator regardless of
how intuitive the process in getting there is.


I guess you are one of the parasitic effects then, eh? Hahahaha!

Yeah, there is a lot missing with his claim.

It is a Chevette, not a Monte Carlo.

flipper wrote:

Fred Abse wrote:

On Sat, 16 May 2009 19:48:20 +0100, Eeyore wrote:

Well, I took a look at it once and didn't find it intuitive to use.

Draw the circuit, plug in the values and crank out the results. How much
more intuitive can you get?

You've stated broad goals that apply to any simulator regardless of
how intuitive the process in getting there is.

Yes quite.

Graham