Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Electronics Repair (sci.electronics.repair) Discussion of repairing electronic equipment. Topics include requests for assistance, where to obtain servicing information and parts, techniques for diagnosis and repair, and annecdotes about success, failures and problems. |
Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Schematics & standards
Someone else made a comment in another thread here about weird
schematics (like for home appliances). Wanted to get a small discussion going on that topic. My take: there are good and bad standards for schematics. Personally, I can't stand the ones that use rectangle shapes for resistors, instead of the traditional zigzag that [insert name of deity here] intended to be used. (And even here there are lots of variations, like old-fashioned schematics that took this symbol rather literally and sometimes had ten or twelve zigs and zags, as if an actual resistor was being constructed on paper). Likewise the wire-connecting/jumping convention: here I much prefer the modern approach, which is to use a dot for a connection and no dot for no connection, rather than the clumsy "loop" to indicate one wire jumping over another with no connection. Regarding resistor values: Who the hell came up with that new way of specifying resistance values, like "10R" "or 5K6" or whatever? And why use this system? I've always used the plain value of the resistance: 10, 56, 5.6K, 56K, etc. Simple, obvious, requires no interpretation. Is this some kind of Euro thing? In general, some schematics just look and feel nicer than others. A well-drawn schematic is a pleasure to read. A bad one--lines too thin or too thick, misshapen symbols, idiosyncratic interpretations, etc., just don't look right. Feel free to add your own schematic pet peeves here. -- The fashion in killing has an insouciant, flirty style this spring, with the flaunting of well-defined muscle, wrapped in flags. - Comment from an article on Antiwar.com (http://antiwar.com) |
#2
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Schematics & standards
Am 18.06.2010 22:18, schrieb David Nebenzahl:
Someone else made a comment in another thread here about weird schematics (like for home appliances). Wanted to get a small discussion going on that topic. My take: there are good and bad standards for schematics. Personally, I can't stand the ones that use rectangle shapes for resistors, instead of the traditional zigzag that [insert name of deity here] intended to be used... I prefer the traditional (German?) rectangle shape for resistors, your zigzag things too much look like inductors, Herr Nebenzahl ;-) Likewise the wire-connecting/jumping convention: here I much prefer the modern approach, which is to use a dot for a connection and no dot for no connection, rather than the clumsy "loop" to indicate one wire jumping over another with no connection. Same here. Regarding resistor values: Who the hell came up with that new way of specifying resistance values, like "10R" "or 5K6" or whatever? And why use this system? I've always used the plain value of the resistance: 10, 56, 5.6K, 56K, etc. Simple, obvious, requires no interpretation. Is this some kind of Euro thing? I prefer the nKm to n.mK, as in the second case the very small "." makes the difference between 5.6 and 56. Falk |
#3
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Schematics & standards
On 6/18/2010 1:32 PM Falk Willberg spake thus:
Am 18.06.2010 22:18, schrieb David Nebenzahl: Someone else made a comment in another thread here about weird schematics (like for home appliances). Wanted to get a small discussion going on that topic. My take: there are good and bad standards for schematics. Personally, I can't stand the ones that use rectangle shapes for resistors, instead of the traditional zigzag that [insert name of deity here] intended to be used... I prefer the traditional (German?) rectangle shape for resistors, your zigzag things too much look like inductors, Herr Nebenzahl ;-) Danke schoen, Herr Falk. (ich bin nein ein Deutschlander) So those little boxes are a German thing, eh? Well, you should see my on resistor symbols (zigzags). You'd *never* mistake one of them for an inductor. -- The fashion in killing has an insouciant, flirty style this spring, with the flaunting of well-defined muscle, wrapped in flags. - Comment from an article on Antiwar.com (http://antiwar.com) |
#4
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Schematics & standards
"Falk Willberg" I prefer the traditional (German?) rectangle shape for resistors, your zigzag things too much look like inductors, Herr Nebenzahl ;-) ** Little boxes, little boxes and they're all made out of ticky tacky ..... Must be some kind of rabid Nazi obsession to put everything and everyone into boxes ??? With or without Zyklon B gas for filler. I prefer the nKm to n.mK, as in the second case the very small "." makes the difference between 5.6 and 56. ** Lotsa folk fail to see the * point * of this ..... Falk ** Must be one of them WW2 Messerschmitt pilots ..... Phil |
#5
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Schematics & standards
Am 19.06.2010 15:59, schrieb Phil Allison:
"Falk Willberg" I prefer the traditional (German?) rectangle shape for resistors, your zigzag things too much look like inductors, Herr Nebenzahl ;-) .... Must be some kind of rabid Nazi obsession to put everything and everyone into boxes ??? With or without Zyklon B gas for filler. By the way, when you have stopped to slaughter aborigines? Before or after WWII? Falk |
#6
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Schematics & standards
I agree mit Herr Nebenzahl.
I grew up with Popular Electronics, and it and its sister magazine, Electronics World, had the nicest-looking schematics I've ever seen, anywhere. Obviously that's a matter of taste, but they were clean and handsome (to me). |
#7
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Schematics & standards
David Nebenzahl wrote in message
.com... Someone else made a comment in another thread here about weird schematics (like for home appliances). Wanted to get a small discussion going on that topic. My take: there are good and bad standards for schematics. Personally, I can't stand the ones that use rectangle shapes for resistors, instead of the traditional zigzag that [insert name of deity here] intended to be used. (And even here there are lots of variations, like old-fashioned schematics that took this symbol rather literally and sometimes had ten or twelve zigs and zags, as if an actual resistor was being constructed on paper). Likewise the wire-connecting/jumping convention: here I much prefer the modern approach, which is to use a dot for a connection and no dot for no connection, rather than the clumsy "loop" to indicate one wire jumping over another with no connection. Regarding resistor values: Who the hell came up with that new way of specifying resistance values, like "10R" "or 5K6" or whatever? And why use this system? I've always used the plain value of the resistance: 10, 56, 5.6K, 56K, etc. Simple, obvious, requires no interpretation. Is this some kind of Euro thing? In general, some schematics just look and feel nicer than others. A well-drawn schematic is a pleasure to read. A bad one--lines too thin or too thick, misshapen symbols, idiosyncratic interpretations, etc., just don't look right. Feel free to add your own schematic pet peeves here. -- The fashion in killing has an insouciant, flirty style this spring, with the flaunting of well-defined muscle, wrapped in flags. - Comment from an article on Antiwar.com (http://antiwar.com) How often have you come across compressed pdf-type schema or reduced paper-based ones where the decimal point has disappeared , and there is no kerning for dots, so you cannot infer a position for any dot position. Replace R/K/M for the dot makes a lot of sense. |
#8
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Schematics & standards
"N_Cook" wrote in message ... David Nebenzahl wrote in message .com... Someone else made a comment in another thread here about weird schematics (like for home appliances). Wanted to get a small discussion going on that topic. My take: there are good and bad standards for schematics. Personally, I can't stand the ones that use rectangle shapes for resistors, instead of the traditional zigzag that [insert name of deity here] intended to be used. (And even here there are lots of variations, like old-fashioned schematics that took this symbol rather literally and sometimes had ten or twelve zigs and zags, as if an actual resistor was being constructed on paper). Likewise the wire-connecting/jumping convention: here I much prefer the modern approach, which is to use a dot for a connection and no dot for no connection, rather than the clumsy "loop" to indicate one wire jumping over another with no connection. Regarding resistor values: Who the hell came up with that new way of specifying resistance values, like "10R" "or 5K6" or whatever? And why use this system? I've always used the plain value of the resistance: 10, 56, 5.6K, 56K, etc. Simple, obvious, requires no interpretation. Is this some kind of Euro thing? In general, some schematics just look and feel nicer than others. A well-drawn schematic is a pleasure to read. A bad one--lines too thin or too thick, misshapen symbols, idiosyncratic interpretations, etc., just don't look right. Feel free to add your own schematic pet peeves here. -- The fashion in killing has an insouciant, flirty style this spring, with the flaunting of well-defined muscle, wrapped in flags. - Comment from an article on Antiwar.com (http://antiwar.com) How often have you come across compressed pdf-type schema or reduced paper-based ones where the decimal point has disappeared , and there is no kerning for dots, so you cannot infer a position for any dot position. Replace R/K/M for the dot makes a lot of sense. Yes, I'd go along with that. It is a far more sensible way of showing values, and I can't see anything counter intuitive about understanding it. I still prefer zig-zags for resistors, and if I'm drawing a quick 'sketch' of a diagram, I always still 'jump' the non-connected lines. However, when I'm hand-drawing a diagram properly, with nice straight lines and 'gridded' components, I always break one of the two crossing lines, where they break, so sort of the 'jumping over' convention, but without the actual bridge being drawn. I'm not sure where I first saw this, but schematics drawn like it, look quite nice. There's no question about whether lines do connect or not, and the brain fills in the little missing bit of the line without you having to think about it. Where lines do connect, they get a nice dot on them. I always still use the original logic symbols for gates and counters and latches and inverters and so on. I find the new style 'blocky' symbols need too much looking at, and taking into consideration of additional writing and symbols within the block. I always thought that the original symbols were all sufficiently different for the most part, to allow instant understanding of function by quick glance alone. I would agree that appliance schematics are often unclear, and use odd symbols. Also, with apologies to Herr Willberg, I think that German schematics from 20 or 30 years back, are some of the worst to follow that I've ever seen. I defy anyone who's not German, to follow a Grundig schematic, for instance ... Although Dutch, some of Philips' ones from a few years back were also a nightmare to follow. They had a very frustrating convention regarding where signals went when they (frequently) disappeared off the side of a page, and the signal was often nigh on impossible to ever find again ... But the prize for impossible to follow schematics, has to go to the automotive industry. Those diagrams have a convention all of their own, and always have done. Some of the most frustrating fault-tracing sessions of my life, have involved cars and the electrical diagrams for them. They are a cross between a schematic and a wiring diagram, with symbols peculiar to and only understood by automotive manufacturing initiates. Every bullet and connector is shown, using a variety of different conventions between manufacturers. Schematics go across multiple pages, with wires that leave often almost impossible to re-find on the next diagram. Colours, wire gauges and goodness only knows what other info, are all crammed onto the diagrams. Nightmare ... Arfa |
#9
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Schematics & standards
Arfa Daily wrote in message
news:TP%Sn.34795$Ha1.13804@hurricane... "N_Cook" wrote in message ... David Nebenzahl wrote in message .com... Yes, I'd go along with that. It is a far more sensible way of showing values, and I can't see anything counter intuitive about understanding it. I still prefer zig-zags for resistors, and if I'm drawing a quick 'sketch' of a diagram, I always still 'jump' the non-connected lines. However, when I'm hand-drawing a diagram properly, with nice straight lines and 'gridded' components, I always break one of the two crossing lines, where they break, so sort of the 'jumping over' convention, but without the actual bridge being drawn. I'm not sure where I first saw this, but schematics drawn like it, look quite nice. There's no question about whether lines do connect or not, and the brain fills in the little missing bit of the line without you having to think about it. Where lines do connect, they get a nice dot on them. I always still use the original logic symbols for gates and counters and latches and inverters and so on. I find the new style 'blocky' symbols need too much looking at, and taking into consideration of additional writing and symbols within the block. I always thought that the original symbols were all sufficiently different for the most part, to allow instant understanding of function by quick glance alone. I would agree that appliance schematics are often unclear, and use odd symbols. Also, with apologies to Herr Willberg, I think that German schematics from 20 or 30 years back, are some of the worst to follow that I've ever seen. I defy anyone who's not German, to follow a Grundig schematic, for instance ... Although Dutch, some of Philips' ones from a few years back were also a nightmare to follow. They had a very frustrating convention regarding where signals went when they (frequently) disappeared off the side of a page, and the signal was often nigh on impossible to ever find again ... But the prize for impossible to follow schematics, has to go to the automotive industry. Those diagrams have a convention all of their own, and always have done. Some of the most frustrating fault-tracing sessions of my life, have involved cars and the electrical diagrams for them. They are a cross between a schematic and a wiring diagram, with symbols peculiar to and only understood by automotive manufacturing initiates. Every bullet and connector is shown, using a variety of different conventions between manufacturers. Schematics go across multiple pages, with wires that leave often almost impossible to re-find on the next diagram. Colours, wire gauges and goodness only knows what other info, are all crammed onto the diagrams. Nightmare ... Arfa My beef is with caps marked 270 say, is it 27 or 270 ?, if there are no other same series caps on the board for convention comparison, eg 471 |
#10
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Schematics & standards
Arfa Daily wrote: "N_Cook" wrote in message ... David Nebenzahl wrote in message .com... Someone else made a comment in another thread here about weird schematics (like for home appliances). Wanted to get a small discussion going on that topic. My take: there are good and bad standards for schematics. Personally, I can't stand the ones that use rectangle shapes for resistors, instead of the traditional zigzag that [insert name of deity here] intended to be used. (And even here there are lots of variations, like old-fashioned schematics that took this symbol rather literally and sometimes had ten or twelve zigs and zags, as if an actual resistor was being constructed on paper). Likewise the wire-connecting/jumping convention: here I much prefer the modern approach, which is to use a dot for a connection and no dot for no connection, rather than the clumsy "loop" to indicate one wire jumping over another with no connection. Regarding resistor values: Who the hell came up with that new way of specifying resistance values, like "10R" "or 5K6" or whatever? And why use this system? I've always used the plain value of the resistance: 10, 56, 5.6K, 56K, etc. Simple, obvious, requires no interpretation. Is this some kind of Euro thing? In general, some schematics just look and feel nicer than others. A well-drawn schematic is a pleasure to read. A bad one--lines too thin or too thick, misshapen symbols, idiosyncratic interpretations, etc., just don't look right. Feel free to add your own schematic pet peeves here. -- The fashion in killing has an insouciant, flirty style this spring, with the flaunting of well-defined muscle, wrapped in flags. - Comment from an article on Antiwar.com (http://antiwar.com) How often have you come across compressed pdf-type schema or reduced paper-based ones where the decimal point has disappeared , and there is no kerning for dots, so you cannot infer a position for any dot position. Replace R/K/M for the dot makes a lot of sense. Yes, I'd go along with that. It is a far more sensible way of showing values, and I can't see anything counter intuitive about understanding it. I still prefer zig-zags for resistors, and if I'm drawing a quick 'sketch' of a diagram, I always still 'jump' the non-connected lines. However, when I'm hand-drawing a diagram properly, with nice straight lines and 'gridded' components, I always break one of the two crossing lines, where they break, so sort of the 'jumping over' convention, but without the actual bridge being drawn. I'm not sure where I first saw this, but schematics drawn like it, look quite nice. There's no question about whether lines do connect or not, and the brain fills in the little missing bit of the line without you having to think about it. Where lines do connect, they get a nice dot on them. I always still use the original logic symbols for gates and counters and latches and inverters and so on. I find the new style 'blocky' symbols need too much looking at, and taking into consideration of additional writing and symbols within the block. I always thought that the original symbols were all sufficiently different for the most part, to allow instant understanding of function by quick glance alone. I would agree that appliance schematics are often unclear, and use odd symbols. Also, with apologies to Herr Willberg, I think that German schematics from 20 or 30 years back, are some of the worst to follow that I've ever seen. I defy anyone who's not German, to follow a Grundig schematic, for instance ... Although Dutch, some of Philips' ones from a few years back were also a nightmare to follow. They had a very frustrating convention regarding where signals went when they (frequently) disappeared off the side of a page, and the signal was often nigh on impossible to ever find again ... But the prize for impossible to follow schematics, has to go to the automotive industry. Those diagrams have a convention all of their own, and always have done. Some of the most frustrating fault-tracing sessions of my life, have involved cars and the electrical diagrams for them. They are a cross between a schematic and a wiring diagram, with symbols peculiar to and only understood by automotive manufacturing initiates. Every bullet and connector is shown, using a variety of different conventions between manufacturers. Schematics go across multiple pages, with wires that leave often almost impossible to re-find on the next diagram. Colours, wire gauges and goodness only knows what other info, are all crammed onto the diagrams. Nightmare ... You should see some old IBM mainframe schmatics. Almost everything is a box. -- Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to have a DD214, and a honorable discharge. |
#11
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Schematics & standards
Arfa Daily wrote:
[...] But the prize for impossible to follow schematics, has to go to the automotive industry. Those diagrams have a convention all of their own, and always have done. Some years ago I owned a Standard Vanguard and the circuit diagram in the owners handbook (you didn't need to buy an expensive workshop manual) was exemplary. I have never seen one as clear as that for any other car. -- ~ Adrian Tuddenham ~ (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply) www.poppyrecords.co.uk |
#12
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Schematics & standards
Arfa Daily wrote:
"N_Cook" wrote in message ... David Nebenzahl wrote in message .com... Someone else made a comment in another thread here about weird schematics (like for home appliances). Wanted to get a small discussion going on that topic. My take: there are good and bad standards for schematics. Personally, I can't stand the ones that use rectangle shapes for resistors, instead of the traditional zigzag that [insert name of deity here] intended to be used. (And even here there are lots of variations, like old-fashioned schematics that took this symbol rather literally and sometimes had ten or twelve zigs and zags, as if an actual resistor was being constructed on paper). Likewise the wire-connecting/jumping convention: here I much prefer the modern approach, which is to use a dot for a connection and no dot for no connection, rather than the clumsy "loop" to indicate one wire jumping over another with no connection. Regarding resistor values: Who the hell came up with that new way of specifying resistance values, like "10R" "or 5K6" or whatever? And why use this system? I've always used the plain value of the resistance: 10, 56, 5.6K, 56K, etc. Simple, obvious, requires no interpretation. Is this some kind of Euro thing? In general, some schematics just look and feel nicer than others. A well-drawn schematic is a pleasure to read. A bad one--lines too thin or too thick, misshapen symbols, idiosyncratic interpretations, etc., just don't look right. Feel free to add your own schematic pet peeves here. -- The fashion in killing has an insouciant, flirty style this spring, with the flaunting of well-defined muscle, wrapped in flags. - Comment from an article on Antiwar.com (http://antiwar.com) How often have you come across compressed pdf-type schema or reduced paper-based ones where the decimal point has disappeared , and there is no kerning for dots, so you cannot infer a position for any dot position. Replace R/K/M for the dot makes a lot of sense. Yes, I'd go along with that. It is a far more sensible way of showing values, and I can't see anything counter intuitive about understanding it. I still prefer zig-zags for resistors, and if I'm drawing a quick 'sketch' of a diagram, I always still 'jump' the non-connected lines. However, when I'm hand-drawing a diagram properly, with nice straight lines and 'gridded' components, I always break one of the two crossing lines, where they break, so sort of the 'jumping over' convention, but without the actual bridge being drawn. I'm not sure where I first saw this, but schematics drawn like it, look quite nice. There's no question about whether lines do connect or not, and the brain fills in the little missing bit of the line without you having to think about it. Where lines do connect, they get a nice dot on them. I always still use the original logic symbols for gates and counters and latches and inverters and so on. I find the new style 'blocky' symbols need too much looking at, and taking into consideration of additional writing and symbols within the block. I always thought that the original symbols were all sufficiently different for the most part, to allow instant understanding of function by quick glance alone. I would agree that appliance schematics are often unclear, and use odd symbols. Also, with apologies to Herr Willberg, I think that German schematics from 20 or 30 years back, are some of the worst to follow that I've ever seen. I defy anyone who's not German, to follow a Grundig schematic, for instance ... Although Dutch, some of Philips' ones from a few years back were also a nightmare to follow. They had a very frustrating convention regarding where signals went when they (frequently) disappeared off the side of a page, and the signal was often nigh on impossible to ever find again ... But the prize for impossible to follow schematics, has to go to the automotive industry. Those diagrams have a convention all of their own, and always have done. Some of the most frustrating fault-tracing sessions of my life, have involved cars and the electrical diagrams for them. They are a cross between a schematic and a wiring diagram, with symbols peculiar to and only understood by automotive manufacturing initiates. Every bullet and connector is shown, using a variety of different conventions between manufacturers. Schematics go across multiple pages, with wires that leave often almost impossible to re-find on the next diagram. Colours, wire gauges and goodness only knows what other info, are all crammed onto the diagrams. Nightmare ... Arfa ha, plus every damn wire is taped together into some completely awful harness. There has to be at least 50 pounds of PVC electrical tape in every car out there. |
#13
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Schematics & standards
On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 10:10:10 +0100, "Arfa Daily"
put finger to keyboard and composed: I always still use the original logic symbols for gates and counters and latches and inverters and so on. I find the new style 'blocky' symbols need too much looking at, and taking into consideration of additional writing and symbols within the block. I always thought that the original symbols were all sufficiently different for the most part, to allow instant understanding of function by quick glance alone. Those blocky symbols are an IEC standard. I find them utterly unreadable. - Franc Zabkar -- Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email. |
#14
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Schematics & standards
David Nebenzahl wrote:
Someone else made a comment in another thread here about weird schematics (like for home appliances). [...] ... wire-connecting/jumping convention: here I much prefer the modern approach, which is to use a dot for a connection and no dot for no connection, rather than the clumsy "loop" to indicate one wire jumping over another with no connection. I find the 'gap' convention is easy to draw (with a computer) and extremely easy to read. It also looks tidy. Four-way junctions which could be mistaken for crossings should never be used, they should be staggered instead. e.g. http://www.poppyrecords.co.uk/compto...sAmplifier.gif Regarding resistor values: Who the hell came up with that new way of specifying resistance values, like "10R" "or 5K6" or whatever? And why use this system? I've always used the plain value of the resistance: 10, 56, 5.6K, 56K, etc. Simple, obvious, requires no interpretation. Is this some kind of Euro thing? I first saw it in German and Dutch publications. Once you have become accustomed to it, it is quite easy to use and it is utterly unambiguous, even when badly photocopied. Probably the best circuit diagrams were those in Wireless World when it was still part of Illiffe Publications (also those in BBC Technical Instructions). They were drawn by trained draughtsmen who also understood electronics. The worst ones are those with boxes. A symbol should indicate what the component is without having to read the small print. I was very pleased when Wireless World declared that it would not be following British Standards and would continue to use 'proper' symbvols. -- ~ Adrian Tuddenham ~ (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply) www.poppyrecords.co.uk |
#15
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Schematics & standards
On 6/19/2010 8:35 AM Adrian Tuddenham spake thus:
David Nebenzahl wrote: Someone else made a comment in another thread here about weird schematics (like for home appliances). [...] ... wire-connecting/jumping convention: here I much prefer the modern approach, which is to use a dot for a connection and no dot for no connection, rather than the clumsy "loop" to indicate one wire jumping over another with no connection. I find the 'gap' convention is easy to draw (with a computer) and extremely easy to read. It also looks tidy. Four-way junctions which could be mistaken for crossings should never be used, they should be staggered instead. e.g. http://www.poppyrecords.co.uk/compto...sAmplifier.gif BZZZZZZT! Fail. While the gap thing looks OK for non-crossing wires, I have to ding the drafts-person of that schematic for the following: o Idiosyncratic symbols for electrolytic cazapitors[1] o Idiosyncratic ground symbol (one horizontal line????) o And no, I disagree about those offsets for connecting wires. That's totally unnecessary he it would be quite obvious that all those vertical wires connect to what is obviously a bus or rail. A well-drawn dot is all that's needed there. (And I don't much like their transistor symbols either) [1] With apologies to J. Liebermann. -- The fashion in killing has an insouciant, flirty style this spring, with the flaunting of well-defined muscle, wrapped in flags. - Comment from an article on Antiwar.com (http://antiwar.com) |
#16
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Schematics & standards
David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 6/19/2010 8:35 AM Adrian Tuddenham spake thus: David Nebenzahl wrote: Someone else made a comment in another thread here about weird schematics (like for home appliances). [...] ... wire-connecting/jumping convention: here I much prefer the modern approach, which is to use a dot for a connection and no dot for no connection, rather than the clumsy "loop" to indicate one wire jumping over another with no connection. I find the 'gap' convention is easy to draw (with a computer) and extremely easy to read. It also looks tidy. Four-way junctions which could be mistaken for crossings should never be used, they should be staggered instead. e.g. http://www.poppyrecords.co.uk/compto...sAmplifier.gif BZZZZZZT! Fail. While the gap thing looks OK for non-crossing wires, I have to ding the drafts-person of that schematic for the following: o Idiosyncratic symbols for electrolytic cazapitors... It appears that you had no difficulty identifying them, so they succeeded as symbols. The polarity is also a lot more 'intuitive' than the conventional symbol. o Idiosyncratic ground symbol (one horizontal line????) Again, you recognised it without ambiguity and it isn't all that unusual: http://www.ortodoxism.ro/datasheets2...qfjx9qjc3y.pdf o And no, I disagree about those offsets for connecting wires. That's totally unnecessary he it would be quite obvious that all those vertical wires connect to what is obviously a bus or rail. A well-drawn dot is all that's needed there. That's your preference, but I prefer offsets because they are utterly unambiguous, even in a poorly copied drawing. (And I don't much like their transistor symbols either) For junction transistors they are incorrect, I agree, but I have become used to them. I find it takes me a while to get my mind around the correct symbols because they are so rarely used nowadays Just for fun, I've replaced the point-contact symbols in that drawing with the correct junction ones: http://www.poppyrecords.co.uk/compto...Amplifier2.gif The wrong symbols have become so well-estabilshed nowadays that I doubt if most people even noticed they were wrong. -- ~ Adrian Tuddenham ~ (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply) www.poppyrecords.co.uk |
#17
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Schematics & standards
On 6/19/2010 1:19 PM Adrian Tuddenham spake thus:
David Nebenzahl wrote: (And I don't much like their transistor symbols either) For junction transistors they are incorrect, I agree, but I have become used to them. I find it takes me a while to get my mind around the correct symbols because they are so rarely used nowadays Just for fun, I've replaced the point-contact symbols in that drawing with the correct junction ones: http://www.poppyrecords.co.uk/compto...Amplifier2.gif The wrong symbols have become so well-estabilshed nowadays that I doubt if most people even noticed they were wrong. Now that's just plain *weird*. Since when are the *conventional* symbols for (junction) transistors considered to be for the old, obsolete point-contact ones? Every single schematic that uses transistors--modern silicon ones, not ancient point-contact germanium ones--uses the conventional symbols, like the ones in the first drawing you posted. I've *never* seen symbols like the ones in your "new, improved" drawing. Those are just plain idiosyncratic, non-standard and weird. They look kind of like diodes with an elongated anode. I'll stick with the tried and true standard symbols, thank you very much. -- The fashion in killing has an insouciant, flirty style this spring, with the flaunting of well-defined muscle, wrapped in flags. - Comment from an article on Antiwar.com (http://antiwar.com) |
#18
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Schematics & standards
David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 6/19/2010 1:19 PM Adrian Tuddenham spake thus: David Nebenzahl wrote: (And I don't much like their transistor symbols either) For junction transistors they are incorrect, I agree, but I have become used to them. I find it takes me a while to get my mind around the correct symbols because they are so rarely used nowadays Just for fun, I've replaced the point-contact symbols in that drawing with the correct junction ones: http://www.poppyrecords.co.uk/compto...Amplifier2.gif The wrong symbols have become so well-estabilshed nowadays that I doubt if most people even noticed they were wrong. Now that's just plain *weird*. I thought you would find them interesting. Since when are the *conventional* symbols for (junction) transistors considered to be for the old, obsolete point-contact ones? When junction transistors were first introduced there was a need for a new symbol to distinguish them from the point-contact type which the 'conventional' symbol represented. Several eminent journals and text books changed over to the new 'junction' symbol, but, by then, the point-contact symbol was so well established that the change never caught on. Every single schematic that uses transistors--modern silicon ones, not ancient point-contact germanium ones--uses the conventional symbols, like the ones in the first drawing you posted. You will find the 'junction' symbols in some Acoustical Quad circuit diagrams, Peter Walker was a stickler for getting things right. They also appeared in Wireless World for a while and are used in "The Foundations of Wireless" by M.G. Scroggie (8th Edition) specifically to distinguish the two different types of transistor. I've *never* seen symbols like the ones in your "new, improved" drawing. Those are just plain idiosyncratic, non-standard and weird. They look kind of like diodes with an elongated anode. They certainly look strange when you have been used to the point-contact symbol, but you must admit they give a clear representation of a junction transistor. I'll stick with the tried and true standard symbols, thank you very much. At least you will be able to recognise the other types if you ever encounter them again. -- ~ Adrian Tuddenham ~ (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply) www.poppyrecords.co.uk |
#19
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Schematics & standards
"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message .com... On 6/19/2010 8:35 AM Adrian Tuddenham spake thus: David Nebenzahl wrote: Someone else made a comment in another thread here about weird schematics (like for home appliances). [...] ... wire-connecting/jumping convention: here I much prefer the modern approach, which is to use a dot for a connection and no dot for no connection, rather than the clumsy "loop" to indicate one wire jumping over another with no connection. I find the 'gap' convention is easy to draw (with a computer) and extremely easy to read. It also looks tidy. Four-way junctions which could be mistaken for crossings should never be used, they should be staggered instead. e.g. http://www.poppyrecords.co.uk/compto...sAmplifier.gif BZZZZZZT! Fail. While the gap thing looks OK for non-crossing wires, I have to ding the drafts-person of that schematic for the following: o Idiosyncratic symbols for electrolytic cazapitors[1] o Idiosyncratic ground symbol (one horizontal line????) o And no, I disagree about those offsets for connecting wires. That's totally unnecessary he it would be quite obvious that all those vertical wires connect to what is obviously a bus or rail. A well-drawn dot is all that's needed there. (And I don't much like their transistor symbols either) [1] With apologies to J. Liebermann. I must say that I don't really like the staggered connections, but what's wrong with the transistor symbols ? And the single heavy horizontal line for the 0v rail, is very common this side of the pond. 0v rails always used to be shown as a heavy horizontal line right across the schematic, sometimes with a chassis symbol attached as well. These days, most schematics are so complex, that the 0v line is now left out, and 'abbreviated' to individual short heavy lines at each connection point on the schematic. The electrolytic symbol is not, however, the one commonly used here, which is a pair of rectangles, one filled in for the -ve side, and the other open for the +ve side. Sometimes, the American convention of one straight and one curved plate, is used. Arfa |
#20
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Schematics & standards
Arfa Daily wrote:
"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message .com... On 6/19/2010 8:35 AM Adrian Tuddenham spake thus: David Nebenzahl wrote: Someone else made a comment in another thread here about weird schematics (like for home appliances). [...] ... wire-connecting/jumping convention: here I much prefer the modern approach, which is to use a dot for a connection and no dot for no connection, rather than the clumsy "loop" to indicate one wire jumping over another with no connection. I find the 'gap' convention is easy to draw (with a computer) and extremely easy to read. It also looks tidy. Four-way junctions which could be mistaken for crossings should never be used, they should be staggered instead. e.g. http://www.poppyrecords.co.uk/compto...sAmplifier.gif BZZZZZZT! Fail. While the gap thing looks OK for non-crossing wires, I have to ding the drafts-person of that schematic for the following: o Idiosyncratic symbols for electrolytic cazapitors[1] o Idiosyncratic ground symbol (one horizontal line????) o And no, I disagree about those offsets for connecting wires. That's totally unnecessary he it would be quite obvious that all those vertical wires connect to what is obviously a bus or rail. A well-drawn dot is all that's needed there. (And I don't much like their transistor symbols either) [1] With apologies to J. Liebermann. I must say that I don't really like the staggered connections,... They do tend to give a slightly messy appearance, but the alternatives were worse: 1) Stagger one half of the output stage slightly to the right (takes up more space and doesn't shout "symmetry" to the reader). 2) Use loops for crossings (even messier in appearance). 3) Dotted and un-dotted crossings (error-prone because the straight-through line misleads the eye in spite of the dot). -- ~ Adrian Tuddenham ~ (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply) www.poppyrecords.co.uk |
#21
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Schematics & standards
Arfa Daily wrote:
"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message .com... On 6/19/2010 8:35 AM Adrian Tuddenham spake thus: David Nebenzahl wrote: Someone else made a comment in another thread here about weird schematics (like for home appliances). [...] ... wire-connecting/jumping convention: here I much prefer the modern approach, which is to use a dot for a connection and no dot for no connection, rather than the clumsy "loop" to indicate one wire jumping over another with no connection. I find the 'gap' convention is easy to draw (with a computer) and extremely easy to read. It also looks tidy. Four-way junctions which could be mistaken for crossings should never be used, they should be staggered instead. e.g. http://www.poppyrecords.co.uk/compto...sAmplifier.gif BZZZZZZT! Fail. While the gap thing looks OK for non-crossing wires, I have to ding the drafts-person of that schematic for the following: o Idiosyncratic symbols for electrolytic cazapitors[1] o Idiosyncratic ground symbol (one horizontal line????) o And no, I disagree about those offsets for connecting wires. That's totally unnecessary he it would be quite obvious that all those vertical wires connect to what is obviously a bus or rail. A well-drawn dot is all that's needed there. (And I don't much like their transistor symbols either) [1] With apologies to J. Liebermann. I must say that I don't really like the staggered connections, but what's wrong with the transistor symbols ? And the single heavy horizontal line for the 0v rail, is very common this side of the pond. 0v rails always used to be shown as a heavy horizontal line right across the schematic, sometimes with a chassis symbol attached as well. These days, most schematics are so complex, that the 0v line is now left out, and 'abbreviated' to individual short heavy lines at each connection point on the schematic. The electrolytic symbol is not, however, the one commonly used here, which is a pair of rectangles, one filled in for the -ve side, and the other open for the +ve side. Sometimes, the American convention of one straight and one curved plate, is used. Arfa Americans also do crazy things like just write a + sign next to the anode if two parallel lines of equal size are used to represent a capacitor. On the other hand, only the cathode is marked on electrolytics for some reason. Is there a great story behind this? |
#22
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Schematics & standards
Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
David Nebenzahl wrote: Someone else made a comment in another thread here about weird schematics (like for home appliances). [...] ... wire-connecting/jumping convention: here I much prefer the modern approach, which is to use a dot for a connection and no dot for no connection, rather than the clumsy "loop" to indicate one wire jumping over another with no connection. I find the 'gap' convention is easy to draw (with a computer) and extremely easy to read. It also looks tidy. Four-way junctions which could be mistaken for crossings should never be used, they should be staggered instead. e.g. http://www.poppyrecords.co.uk/compto...sAmplifier.gif I'd rate this schematic as weird. Some parts are identified, some aren't and the junctions are complex for no reason. Regarding resistor values: Who the hell came up with that new way of specifying resistance values, like "10R" "or 5K6" or whatever? And why use this system? I've always used the plain value of the resistance: 10, 56, 5.6K, 56K, etc. Simple, obvious, requires no interpretation. Is this some kind of Euro thing? I first saw it in German and Dutch publications. Once you have become accustomed to it, it is quite easy to use and it is utterly unambiguous, even when badly photocopied. Who photocopies stuff anymore, and periods aren't hard to read and never were, except in places that read right to left and switch periods to commas. Banks don't print money is formats like 34$00. "Oh it's hard to read" is complete crap. What's next- the germans and dutch replacing numbers with spelled out words? I'm surprised the diodes past the output stage aren't indetified as something like: 1N4k005 or ONE-NANO-FOUR KILO CIPHER CIPER V or something just as goofy. Why are the speakers just 6 ohms, while other resitors have place holders for digits? I just don't get it- how does using multiple systems to represent simple data make things easier? This is why the finest and best technology comes from the USA. Instead of trying to rewrite a 20nm process in semiconductor manufacturing as 20nm0 like europeans might form a committee to try to do, we've come out with 15nm process while everybody else is screwing around trying to solve problems that never existed. Just curious, has a committee come up with some cool new way to write voltages too? The amp uses +/- 30. Should that be written as 30v0 and (30v0) for the negative rail? Afer all, a "-" sign is too confusing and might indicate and error that was crossed out, or a period that was damaged during a recent facsimile transmission of poorly risographed copy of schematic. Is 5kV now 5k0? |
#23
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Schematics & standards
Cydrome Leader wrote:
Adrian Tuddenham wrote: David Nebenzahl wrote: Someone else made a comment in another thread here about weird schematics (like for home appliances). [...] ... wire-connecting/jumping convention: here I much prefer the modern approach, which is to use a dot for a connection and no dot for no connection, rather than the clumsy "loop" to indicate one wire jumping over another with no connection. I find the 'gap' convention is easy to draw (with a computer) and extremely easy to read. It also looks tidy. Four-way junctions which could be mistaken for crossings should never be used, they should be staggered instead. e.g. http://www.poppyrecords.co.uk/compto...sAmplifier.gif I'd rate this schematic as weird. Some parts are identified, some aren't and the junctions are complex for no reason. Regarding resistor values: Who the hell came up with that new way of specifying resistance values, like "10R" "or 5K6" or whatever? And why use this system? I've always used the plain value of the resistance: 10, 56, 5.6K, 56K, etc. Simple, obvious, requires no interpretation. Is this some kind of Euro thing? I first saw it in German and Dutch publications. Once you have become accustomed to it, it is quite easy to use and it is utterly unambiguous, even when badly photocopied. Who photocopies stuff anymore, and periods aren't hard to read and never were, except in places that read right to left and switch periods to commas. People often distribute low-resolution scans of printed circuit diagrams or print them out on poor printers. Sometimes it is almost impossible to read the figures, let alone distinguish a tiny dot. Banks don't print money is formats like 34$00. "Oh it's hard to read" is complete crap. Actually the currency sign often comes first, which is a long-established convention but very confusing the first time you meet it. What's next- the germans and dutch replacing numbers with spelled out words? I'm surprised the diodes past the output stage aren't indetified as something like: 1N4k005 or ONE-NANO-FOUR KILO CIPHER CIPER V or something just as goofy. Why are the speakers just 6 ohms, while other resitors have place holders for digits? The loudspeakers are nominally 6-ohms impedance (but actually much more complex), so the markings on them aren't really component values - more like a part description. Which resistors only have place holders? I can quite believe that i have made mistakes in the drawing, but I haven't spotted that one. I just don't get it- how does using multiple systems to represent simple data make things easier? This is why the finest and best technology comes from the USA. Instead of trying to rewrite a 20nm process in semiconductor manufacturing as 20nm0 like europeans might form a committee to try to do, we've come out with 15nm process while everybody else is screwing around trying to solve problems that never existed. I don't know if the convention was imposed on industry by a committee or whether it was adopted by industry because it was found to have advantages in certain circumstances. I agree that we sometimes have too many committees, but most of Europe (except the U.K.) has acquired the skill of appearing to comply with new regulations whilst actually ignoring them. Just curious, has a committee come up with some cool new way to write voltages too? The amp uses +/- 30. Should that be written as 30v0 and (30v0) for the negative rail? Afer all, a "-" sign is too confusing and might indicate and error that was crossed out, or a period that was damaged during a recent facsimile transmission of poorly risographed copy of schematic. Is 5kV now 5k0? I think you may have (deliberately ?) misunderstood the reason for that convention. It saves space on small components and is unambiguous. There is no need to use it for voltages (although "1v1" is easier to write than 1.1v and less likely to be mistaken for 11v). The convention of three numbers ("104" = 100K) is even smaller to print but the interpretation is not as obvious until you get used to it. -- ~ Adrian Tuddenham ~ (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply) www.poppyrecords.co.uk |
#24
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Schematics & standards
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 13:18:41 -0700, David Nebenzahl
wrote: Someone else made a comment in another thread here about weird schematics (like for home appliances). Wanted to get a small discussion going on that topic. My take: there are good and bad standards for schematics. Personally, I can't stand the ones that use rectangle shapes for resistors, instead of the traditional zigzag that [insert name of deity here] intended to be used. (And even here there are lots of variations, like old-fashioned schematics that took this symbol rather literally and sometimes had ten or twelve zigs and zags, as if an actual resistor was being constructed on paper). Likewise the wire-connecting/jumping convention: here I much prefer the modern approach, which is to use a dot for a connection and no dot for no connection, rather than the clumsy "loop" to indicate one wire jumping over another with no connection. Regarding resistor values: Who the hell came up with that new way of specifying resistance values, like "10R" "or 5K6" or whatever? And why use this system? I've always used the plain value of the resistance: 10, 56, 5.6K, 56K, etc. Simple, obvious, requires no interpretation. Is this some kind of Euro thing? In general, some schematics just look and feel nicer than others. A well-drawn schematic is a pleasure to read. A bad one--lines too thin or too thick, misshapen symbols, idiosyncratic interpretations, etc., just don't look right. Feel free to add your own schematic pet peeves here. Well, the worst schematics of all are those which you cannot find. Even the most miserable scratching on a crumpled piece of paper is better. While I learned using the 3.3K style, I fiend the 3K3 eminently satisfactory, especially because of the redundancy. As was mentioned,, this is important when dealing with a PDF of a poorly scanned, poorly printed original. I prefer the 'old' style - zig-zag lines for resistors, parallel lines for non-polar capacitors, etc. Lines should be drawn with the little loop when crossing lines do not connect, a dot when they do. Again, redundancy. Tags indicating the signal connecting to an IC should have an arrow indicating if the signal is an input or an output, double arrows for a bidirectional bus. And when a signal goes off the page, the description should be accompanied by the page and grid location of the destination, as in SYNC 3E5 indicating the SYNC signal is coming from page 3, grid location E5. As a bonus, the location of each component should be tabulated, either on the schematic, or in a separate chart so it is possible to determine that IC205 is on the bottom side of the circuit board at grid location J12. PlainBill |
#25
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Schematics & standards
On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 15:29:45 -0700, wrote:
Lines should be drawn with the little loop when crossing lines do not connect, a dot when they do. Again, redundancy. Crossings (four-way intersections) never connect. Three-way intersections always connect. Stick with that convention and neither the humpie or a dot are needed, although dots do "look right." There is an authorized reprint of H&H's "How to Draw Schematic Diagrams" from AoE Appx E over at http://opencircuitdesign.com/xcircui...goodschem.html -- Rich Webb Norfolk, VA |
#26
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Schematics & standards
Rich Webb wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 15:29:45 -0700, wrote: Lines should be drawn with the little loop when crossing lines do not connect, a dot when they do. Again, redundancy. Crossings (four-way intersections) never connect. Three-way intersections always connect. Stick with that convention and neither the humpie or a dot are needed, although dots do "look right." There is an authorized reprint of H&H's "How to Draw Schematic Diagrams" from AoE Appx E over at http://opencircuitdesign.com/xcircui...goodschem.html hahaha. the "awful" schematic is great. All it needs are euro-notations, then to be rendered in a small terrible font then saved as a gif. |
#27
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Schematics & standards
On Jun 19, 3:29*pm, wrote:
I prefer the 'old' style - zig-zag lines for resistors, parallel lines for non-polar capacitors, etc. That's OK for digital work, but for RF or high Z, your capacitor symbol needs to have one line, one curve, as appropriate. Another subtlety: if the tube symbol has a dot, it's OK to see a plate glow. No dot, that glow means ... too much current. |
#28
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Schematics & standards
David Nebenzahl wrote:
Someone else made a comment in another thread here about weird schematics (like for home appliances). Wanted to get a small discussion going on that topic. My take: there are good and bad standards for schematics. Personally, I can't stand the ones that use rectangle shapes for resistors, instead of the traditional I find rectangles obnoxious, unless somebody from europe is drawing something in front of me. zigzag that [insert name of deity here] intended to be used. (And even here there are lots of variations, like old-fashioned schematics that took this symbol rather literally and sometimes had ten or twelve zigs and zags, as if an actual resistor was being constructed on paper). Likewise the wire-connecting/jumping convention: here I much prefer the modern approach, which is to use a dot for a connection and no dot for no connection, rather than the clumsy "loop" to indicate one wire jumping over another with no connection. I was taught the half-loop shape first, then moved to the dots and no dots. It seemed like how you're taught to ties shoes in a really complex method of making two rabbit ears first, then tying them. Regarding resistor values: Who the hell came up with that new way of specifying resistance values, like "10R" "or 5K6" or whatever? And why use this system? I've always used the plain value of the resistance: 10, 56, 5.6K, 56K, etc. Simple, obvious, requires no interpretation. Is this some kind of Euro thing? I first saw that on this newsgroup. My question is what idiots came up with it and why? |
#29
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Schematics & standards
"Cydrome Leader" wrote in message ... David Nebenzahl wrote: Someone else made a comment in another thread here about weird schematics (like for home appliances). Wanted to get a small discussion going on that topic. My take: there are good and bad standards for schematics. Personally, I can't stand the ones that use rectangle shapes for resistors, instead of the traditional I find rectangles obnoxious, unless somebody from europe is drawing something in front of me. zigzag that [insert name of deity here] intended to be used. (And even here there are lots of variations, like old-fashioned schematics that took this symbol rather literally and sometimes had ten or twelve zigs and zags, as if an actual resistor was being constructed on paper). Likewise the wire-connecting/jumping convention: here I much prefer the modern approach, which is to use a dot for a connection and no dot for no connection, rather than the clumsy "loop" to indicate one wire jumping over another with no connection. I was taught the half-loop shape first, then moved to the dots and no dots. It seemed like how you're taught to ties shoes in a really complex method of making two rabbit ears first, then tying them. Regarding resistor values: Who the hell came up with that new way of specifying resistance values, like "10R" "or 5K6" or whatever? And why use this system? I've always used the plain value of the resistance: 10, 56, 5.6K, 56K, etc. Simple, obvious, requires no interpretation. Is this some kind of Euro thing? I first saw that on this newsgroup. My question is what idiots came up with it and why? Can you really not understand it ? Or are you being deliberately obtuse ? It has now been explained to the point where a child could understand it. I think it was actually me who you first saw using it here, and I'm pretty sure that we went through it all for your benefit at the time ... Arfa |
#30
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Schematics & standards
Arfa Daily wrote:
"Cydrome Leader" wrote in message ... David Nebenzahl wrote: Someone else made a comment in another thread here about weird schematics (like for home appliances). Wanted to get a small discussion going on that topic. My take: there are good and bad standards for schematics. Personally, I can't stand the ones that use rectangle shapes for resistors, instead of the traditional I find rectangles obnoxious, unless somebody from europe is drawing something in front of me. zigzag that [insert name of deity here] intended to be used. (And even here there are lots of variations, like old-fashioned schematics that took this symbol rather literally and sometimes had ten or twelve zigs and zags, as if an actual resistor was being constructed on paper). Likewise the wire-connecting/jumping convention: here I much prefer the modern approach, which is to use a dot for a connection and no dot for no connection, rather than the clumsy "loop" to indicate one wire jumping over another with no connection. I was taught the half-loop shape first, then moved to the dots and no dots. It seemed like how you're taught to ties shoes in a really complex method of making two rabbit ears first, then tying them. Regarding resistor values: Who the hell came up with that new way of specifying resistance values, like "10R" "or 5K6" or whatever? And why use this system? I've always used the plain value of the resistance: 10, 56, 5.6K, 56K, etc. Simple, obvious, requires no interpretation. Is this some kind of Euro thing? I first saw that on this newsgroup. My question is what idiots came up with it and why? Can you really not understand it ? Or are you being deliberately obtuse ? It has now been explained to the point where a child could understand it. I think it was actually me who you first saw using it here, and I'm pretty sure that we went through it all for your benefit at the time ... Arfa That's funny as writing out values the correct and conventional way doesn't need explanation and a child can follow it, and it's been that way for decades. I'm still waiting to see values for money being written out as 44"euro symbol"66 with cents after the end instead of 44.66. periods are too confusing, commas are too confusing! help, we're all stupid these days! |
#31
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Schematics & standards
"Cydrome Leader" wrote in message ... Arfa Daily wrote: "Cydrome Leader" wrote in message ... David Nebenzahl wrote: Someone else made a comment in another thread here about weird schematics (like for home appliances). Wanted to get a small discussion going on that topic. My take: there are good and bad standards for schematics. Personally, I can't stand the ones that use rectangle shapes for resistors, instead of the traditional I find rectangles obnoxious, unless somebody from europe is drawing something in front of me. zigzag that [insert name of deity here] intended to be used. (And even here there are lots of variations, like old-fashioned schematics that took this symbol rather literally and sometimes had ten or twelve zigs and zags, as if an actual resistor was being constructed on paper). Likewise the wire-connecting/jumping convention: here I much prefer the modern approach, which is to use a dot for a connection and no dot for no connection, rather than the clumsy "loop" to indicate one wire jumping over another with no connection. I was taught the half-loop shape first, then moved to the dots and no dots. It seemed like how you're taught to ties shoes in a really complex method of making two rabbit ears first, then tying them. Regarding resistor values: Who the hell came up with that new way of specifying resistance values, like "10R" "or 5K6" or whatever? And why use this system? I've always used the plain value of the resistance: 10, 56, 5.6K, 56K, etc. Simple, obvious, requires no interpretation. Is this some kind of Euro thing? I first saw that on this newsgroup. My question is what idiots came up with it and why? Can you really not understand it ? Or are you being deliberately obtuse ? It has now been explained to the point where a child could understand it. I think it was actually me who you first saw using it here, and I'm pretty sure that we went through it all for your benefit at the time ... Arfa That's funny as writing out values the correct and conventional way doesn't need explanation and a child can follow it, and it's been that way for decades. I'm still waiting to see values for money being written out as 44"euro symbol"66 with cents after the end instead of 44.66. periods are too confusing, commas are too confusing! help, we're all stupid these days! OK then. You started going on about writing voltages in that notation, as though you couldn't understand that either. Do they not sell zener diodes in America ? That notation has been used for as long as they've been around. Like BZY88 C6V8. Have you never seen that, or perhaps you've never understood what it meant ? Arfa |
#32
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Schematics & standards
On 6/20/2010 5:33 PM Arfa Daily spake thus:
"Cydrome Leader" wrote in message ... Arfa Daily wrote: "Cydrome Leader" wrote in message ... David Nebenzahl wrote: Regarding resistor values: Who the hell came up with that new way of specifying resistance values, like "10R" "or 5K6" or whatever? And why use this system? I've always used the plain value of the resistance: 10, 56, 5.6K, 56K, etc. Simple, obvious, requires no interpretation. Is this some kind of Euro thing? I first saw that on this newsgroup. My question is what idiots came up with it and why? Can you really not understand it ? Or are you being deliberately obtuse ? It has now been explained to the point where a child could understand it. I think it was actually me who you first saw using it here, and I'm pretty sure that we went through it all for your benefit at the time ... That's funny as writing out values the correct and conventional way doesn't need explanation and a child can follow it, and it's been that way for decades. I'm still waiting to see values for money being written out as 44"euro symbol"66 with cents after the end instead of 44.66. periods are too confusing, commas are too confusing! help, we're all stupid these days! OK then. You started going on about writing voltages in that notation, as though you couldn't understand that either. Do they not sell zener diodes in America ? That notation has been used for as long as they've been around. Like BZY88 C6V8. Have you never seen that, or perhaps you've never understood what it meant ? Actually, I think you misunderstood *him*. He was saying that if you're going to use that strange system for resistances, why not also use it for voltages (or perhaps any quantity) as well? Instead of 5.6 volts, since you're so all-fired worried about the potential loss of a period (sorry, full stop), then you should write it as 5V6, no? Or something like that. I agree with him. Why the concern about potential loss of decimal-place information regarding resistances, but not for other parameters like voltage? I think this whole system is needless, and therefore needlessly obtuse, no matter that people like you may become accustomed to it. How often does a decimal point actually disappear? Seems as if schematics were drawn the old "bad" way for decades, and I don't remember any big hullabaloo about mistaken resistance values. -- The fashion in killing has an insouciant, flirty style this spring, with the flaunting of well-defined muscle, wrapped in flags. - Comment from an article on Antiwar.com (http://antiwar.com) |
#33
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Schematics & standards
In article ,
Cydrome Leader wrote: Regarding resistor values: Who the hell came up with that new way of specifying resistance values, like "10R" "or 5K6" or whatever? And why use this system? I've always used the plain value of the resistance: 10, 56, 5.6K, 56K, etc. Simple, obvious, requires no interpretation. Is this some kind of Euro thing? I first saw that on this newsgroup. My question is what idiots came up with it and why? It's been around on this side of the pond for many a year. It uses fewer characters and no chance of not seeing that little full stop in a poorly copied diagram. Like everything else you need to get used to it, though. -- *If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate * Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#34
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Schematics & standards
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:
In article , Cydrome Leader wrote: Regarding resistor values: Who the hell came up with that new way of specifying resistance values, like "10R" "or 5K6" or whatever? And why use this system? I've always used the plain value of the resistance: 10, 56, 5.6K, 56K, etc. Simple, obvious, requires no interpretation. Is this some kind of Euro thing? I first saw that on this newsgroup. My question is what idiots came up with it and why? It's been around on this side of the pond for many a year. It uses fewer characters and no chance of not seeing that little full stop in a poorly copied diagram. Like everything else you need to get used to it, though. I saw an original diagram for a bass amplifier earlier in this post. it looked awful and it wasn't a copy. The text annotations looked like they came from a 9 dot matrix printer and were small and hard to read. The transistors looked lopsided and weird too. That's how it was from the start. I've seriously seen wet-type microfiche printer printouts that look better and are easier to follow. Getting bored and changing how you do stuff every few years doesn't make schematics better looking, eaaier to follow or less ambigious by itself. So, when do you start to write 1.5km as 1km5? |
#35
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Schematics & standards
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 17:06:43 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
wrote: "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote: In article , Cydrome Leader wrote: Regarding resistor values: Who the hell came up with that new way of specifying resistance values, like "10R" "or 5K6" or whatever? And why use this system? I've always used the plain value of the resistance: 10, 56, 5.6K, 56K, etc. Simple, obvious, requires no interpretation. Is this some kind of Euro thing? I first saw that on this newsgroup. My question is what idiots came up with it and why? It's been around on this side of the pond for many a year. It uses fewer characters and no chance of not seeing that little full stop in a poorly copied diagram. Like everything else you need to get used to it, though. I saw an original diagram for a bass amplifier earlier in this post. it looked awful and it wasn't a copy. The text annotations looked like they came from a 9 dot matrix printer and were small and hard to read. The transistors looked lopsided and weird too. That's how it was from the start. I've seriously seen wet-type microfiche printer printouts that look better and are easier to follow. Getting bored and changing how you do stuff every few years doesn't make schematics better looking, eaaier to follow or less ambigious by itself. So, when do you start to write 1.5km as 1km5? That's an excellent suggestion. Your first? As an aside, what is it with people who seem to feel they have a god-given right to dictate the 'right' way to do things? If they had their way, we'd still be walking everywhere, and seeking shelter in trees at night. Things change; usually for the better, sometimes not. Deal with it. PlainBill |
#36
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Schematics & standards
wrote in message ... On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 17:06:43 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader wrote: "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote: In article , Cydrome Leader wrote: Regarding resistor values: Who the hell came up with that new way of specifying resistance values, like "10R" "or 5K6" or whatever? And why use this system? I've always used the plain value of the resistance: 10, 56, 5.6K, 56K, etc. Simple, obvious, requires no interpretation. Is this some kind of Euro thing? I first saw that on this newsgroup. My question is what idiots came up with it and why? It's been around on this side of the pond for many a year. It uses fewer characters and no chance of not seeing that little full stop in a poorly copied diagram. Like everything else you need to get used to it, though. I saw an original diagram for a bass amplifier earlier in this post. it looked awful and it wasn't a copy. The text annotations looked like they came from a 9 dot matrix printer and were small and hard to read. The transistors looked lopsided and weird too. That's how it was from the start. I've seriously seen wet-type microfiche printer printouts that look better and are easier to follow. Getting bored and changing how you do stuff every few years doesn't make schematics better looking, eaaier to follow or less ambigious by itself. So, when do you start to write 1.5km as 1km5? That's an excellent suggestion. Your first? As an aside, what is it with people who seem to feel they have a god-given right to dictate the 'right' way to do things? If they had their way, we'd still be walking everywhere, and seeking shelter in trees at night. Things change; usually for the better, sometimes not. Deal with it. PlainBill Seconded Arfa |
#38
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Schematics & standards
On Jun 18, 4:18*pm, David Nebenzahl wrote:
Someone else made a comment in another thread here about weird schematics (like for home appliances). Wanted to get a small discussion going on that topic. My take: there are good and bad standards for schematics. Personally, I can't stand the ones that use rectangle shapes for resistors, instead of the traditional zigzag that [insert name of deity here] intended to be used. (And even here there are lots of variations, like old-fashioned schematics that took this symbol rather literally and sometimes had ten or twelve zigs and zags, as if an actual resistor was being constructed on paper). Likewise the wire-connecting/jumping convention: here I much prefer the modern approach, which is to use a dot for a connection and no dot for no connection, rather than the clumsy "loop" to indicate one wire jumping over another with no connection. The jumping over loop is much easier to read on a messed up copy than trying to determine if it is a dot or just a smudge. Using 5K6 for markings also makes it earier to read. |
#39
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Schematics & standards
On 6/20/2010 7:09 PM sparky spake thus:
On Jun 18, 4:18 pm, David Nebenzahl wrote: Someone else made a comment in another thread here about weird schematics (like for home appliances). Wanted to get a small discussion going on that topic. My take: there are good and bad standards for schematics. Personally, I can't stand the ones that use rectangle shapes for resistors, instead of the traditional zigzag that [insert name of deity here] intended to be used. (And even here there are lots of variations, like old-fashioned schematics that took this symbol rather literally and sometimes had ten or twelve zigs and zags, as if an actual resistor was being constructed on paper). Likewise the wire-connecting/jumping convention: here I much prefer the modern approach, which is to use a dot for a connection and no dot for no connection, rather than the clumsy "loop" to indicate one wire jumping over another with no connection. The jumping over loop is much easier to read on a messed up copy than trying to determine if it is a dot or just a smudge. Using 5K6 for markings also makes it earier to read. Well, then let me ask you the same question I'm asking others he if that's so, then why don't we use that system (8K2, etc.) for other values like voltages, currents, etc? Aren't they also likely to be hard to read on a "messed-up copy"? Why not be consistent? -- The fashion in killing has an insouciant, flirty style this spring, with the flaunting of well-defined muscle, wrapped in flags. - Comment from an article on Antiwar.com (http://antiwar.com) |
#40
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Schematics & standards
Am 21.06.2010 04:19, schrieb David Nebenzahl:
On 6/20/2010 7:09 PM sparky spake thus: .... The jumping over loop is much easier to read on a messed up copy than trying to determine if it is a dot or just a smudge. Using 5K6 for markings also makes it earier to read. Well, then let me ask you the same question I'm asking others he if that's so, then why don't we use that system (8K2, etc.) for other values like voltages, currents, etc? Aren't they also likely to be hard to read on a "messed-up copy"? Why not be consistent? The range of commonly used resistors starts at about 0R1 and ends at 1M. Capacitors from a few 12pF to some 1000uF. Voltages and currents in common devices do hardly exceed 2V to 400V (uC incl. SPS on mains) resp. 1mA to some 1A. When you find fuse marked 630A in a cell-phone, you do directly know, that it is 630mA. Falk |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
new lighting standards | Home Repair | |||
Where do all those funny 'standards' come from | Metalworking | |||
plumbing standards | Home Repair | |||
Electrical standards | UK diy | |||
2300+Monitor Schematics for Tech Engineers (August 2003) list Original UK schematics | Electronics Repair |