Prev: Sound Technology ST-1700B distortion analyzer measurement pegs meter on low range.
Next: Simple hack to get $1500 to your home.
From: Dave Plowman (News) on 19 Jun 2010 05:32
Using a rectangle for a resistor allows the value to be inserted in it -
quite useful where they're close. And therefore 4K7 takes up less room
than 4.7K - and a full stop is more easily missed when reading. Similarly
a circle for an electrolytic, oval for non electrolytic. After all, an IC
is just a box - not a representative of what it does.

As regards a dot where two cables join, I agree. For some reason this
isn't used much these days. With usually a gap where two circuits cross
rather than a loop. With a dot you don't have to do either.

--
*I used to have an open mind but my brains kept falling out *

Dave Plowman dave(a)davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
From: N_Cook on 19 Jun 2010 08:15
Arfa Daily <arfa.daily(a)ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:TP%Sn.34795$Ha1.13804(a)hurricane...
>
>
> "N_Cook" <diverse(a)tcp.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:hvhv1s$88b$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
> > David Nebenzahl <nobody(a)but.us.chickens> wrote in message
> > news:4c1bd34c$0$2542$822641b3(a)news.adtechcomputers.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


From: Phil Allison on 19 Jun 2010 09:59

"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


From: Michael A. Terrell on 19 Jun 2010 10:45

Arfa Daily wrote:
>
> "N_Cook" <diverse(a)tcp.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:hvhv1s$88b$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
> > David Nebenzahl <nobody(a)but.us.chickens> wrote in message
> > news:4c1bd34c$0$2542$822641b3(a)news.adtechcomputers.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.
From: Adrian Tuddenham on 19 Jun 2010 11:35
Arfa Daily <arfa.daily(a)ntlworld.com> 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
 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Prev: Sound Technology ST-1700B distortion analyzer measurement pegs meter on low range.
Next: Simple hack to get $1500 to your home.