Are schematic symbols going out of fashion?

[Gareth]

Our Drawing Office draws most components as rectangles which, in my
opinion, makes the schematic very hard to understand. Today I asked if
I could have amplifier symbols for my amplifiers and was told that
"nobody has triangles these days". Is this true or are our drawing
office just lazy?

I expect that what has happened is that they have become used to drawing
schematics consisting mainly of things like FPGAs, microcontrollers, etc
and don't see many analogue or discrete components.

What are peoples opinions on rectangles vs schematic symbols?

Thanks for any input,

Gareth.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
To reply to me directly:

Replace the text after the@symbol with: totalise DOT co DOT uk

 

[Frank Bemelman]

"Gareth" <gareth.harris@nobody.nowhere.invalid> schreef in bericht
news:dVmeb.1492$z43.850@newsfep1-gui.server.ntli.net...

Our Drawing Office draws most components as rectangles which, in my
opinion, makes the schematic very hard to understand. Today I asked if
I could have amplifier symbols for my amplifiers and was told that
"nobody has triangles these days". Is this true or are our drawing
office just lazy?

I expect that what has happened is that they have become used to drawing
schematics consisting mainly of things like FPGAs, microcontrollers, etc
and don't see many analogue or discrete components.

What are peoples opinions on rectangles vs schematic symbols?

The "nobody has triangles these days" argument sounds like a cheap
excuse, but personally I would have no problems if someone draws
opamps as rectangles. OIW, your argument "makes the schematic very
hard to understand" isn't very convincing to *me* either.

But you can always quit your job, look at it from the bright side

--
Thanks,
Frank Bemelman
(remove 'x' & .invalid when sending email)

 

[Ben Bradley]

In sci.electronics.design,sci.electronics.cad, Gareth
<gareth.harris@nobody.nowhere.invalid> wrote:

Our Drawing Office draws most components as rectangles which, in my
opinion, makes the schematic very hard to understand. Today I asked if
I could have amplifier symbols for my amplifiers and was told that
"nobody has triangles these days".

I suppose that wpi;d make National Semiconductor, Analog Devices
and many other such companies "nobodies."

Maybe they would like to drive in the USA (presuming you are in the
USA) with all road signs being square, some saying 5t0p and others
saying Y13LD. There are good reasons symbols have different shapes,
colors, etc. These are part of good communication.

Is this true or are our drawing
office just lazy?

I expect that what has happened is that they have become used to drawing
schematics consisting mainly of things like FPGAs, microcontrollers, etc
and don't see many analogue or discrete components.

What are peoples opinions on rectangles vs schematic symbols?

Rectangles are okay for large blocks of logic (processors, memory
abnd such), but if there's a traditional schematic symbol for a
device, there's no reason or excuse not to use it.
I would draw my own schematics, which I do anyway...

Thanks for any input,

Gareth.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
To reply to me directly:

Replace the text after the@symbol with: totalise DOT co DOT uk

-----
http://mindspring.com/~benbradley

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 22:52:22 +0100, Gareth
<gareth.harris@nobody.nowhere.invalid> wrote:

Our Drawing Office draws most components as rectangles which, in my
opinion, makes the schematic very hard to understand. Today I asked if
I could have amplifier symbols for my amplifiers and was told that
"nobody has triangles these days". Is this true or are our drawing
office just lazy?

I expect that what has happened is that they have become used to drawing
schematics consisting mainly of things like FPGAs, microcontrollers, etc
and don't see many analogue or discrete components.

What are peoples opinions on rectangles vs schematic symbols?

Thanks for any input,

Gareth.

Your "Drawing Office" has been victimized by IEEE drawing "standards".
Remember their damned AND gate:
_______
| |
---| & |-----
---| |
|______|

Didn't last very long in the real world did it? Though they did
manage to Hertz us ;-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

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

 

[Active8]

In article <dVmeb.1492$z43.850@newsfep1-gui.server.ntli.net>,
gareth.harris@nobody.nowhere.invalid says...

Our Drawing Office draws most components as rectangles which, in my
opinion, makes the schematic very hard to understand. Today I asked if
I could have amplifier symbols for my amplifiers and was told that
"nobody has triangles these days". Is this true or are our drawing
office just lazy?

well, sounds like they know about triangles. what do the use for
transistors?

I expect that what has happened is that they have become used to drawing
schematics consisting mainly of things like FPGAs, microcontrollers, etc
and don't see many analogue or discrete components.

time to get aquainted, eh?

What are peoples opinions on rectangles vs schematic symbols?

Thanks for any input,

Gareth.

[snip]

arrrggghhhh!

wait... let me get this straight. you're a designer and the drafting
dept is dictating to you? does everyone else have their way with you?
let's try. give me all your money.

why don't you pour their coffee in the toilet and piss in the pot? tell
them that no one in engineering drinks company coffee any more and you
all don't like the bathroon, either.

i'd be looking for another job, for sure. i was told once that computer
files could not be write protected. the person who tried to foist that
line of bs on me was told the same thing by whatever out of town,
corporate pecker head handled tech support. she believed the shit, too.

if they don't like triangles and claim no one uses them, why can i still
buy them? i can also buy adjustable triangles and electronic symbol
templates with real resistor, inductor, and cap symbols. transistors,
amps.... zip, zip, zip... triangles faster than a rectangle.

think about it. if they can't get triangles, how do they draw verticle
lines? easy. the drafting machine (as opposed to a parallel bar, IIRC)
has a verticle rule as well as a horizontal rule. guess what else? those
rules can be set to any angle the draftsman desires.

further more, i don't have to use a drafting board to produce a
schematic and wouldn't ask anyone to do it unless that was the only way.
maybe they're just rebelling because they don't have CAD. "wah!"
engineering has all the good stuff!"

with a few exceptions, the only place i've seen amps as rectangles is
when some draftsman (i think scientific atlanta is the culprit) decides
to use them for CATV distribution amps and in that case it's not hard to
see what's up because every other symbol is *not* a rectangle, except
for the much smaller square representing a 4 port tap. oh, the border
and title block. larger buildings are drawn out when it's not obvious
from the addresses from the plat map. none of those are connected to the
coax.

if someone higher up than the drafting dept can't/won't kick their
asses, update your resume`. unless you have really good reason to stay
and i doubt it's the money if they can't even afford SuperSpice. if i
were a customer and you were a design firm, and you showed me schems
like that, you'd better be damned good if you want to keep me, and i'd
still want them changed.

hang 'em high,
mike

 

[Mark]

On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 22:52:22 +0100, Gareth
<gareth.harris@nobody.nowhere.invalid> wrote:

Our Drawing Office draws most components as rectangles which, in my
opinion, makes the schematic very hard to understand. Today I asked if
I could have amplifier symbols for my amplifiers and was told that
"nobody has triangles these days". Is this true or are our drawing
office just lazy?

I expect that what has happened is that they have become used to drawing
schematics consisting mainly of things like FPGAs, microcontrollers, etc
and don't see many analogue or discrete components.

What are peoples opinions on rectangles vs schematic symbols?

Thanks for any input,

Gareth.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
To reply to me directly:

Replace the text after the@symbol with: totalise DOT co DOT uk

First, fire everyone in your "drawing office!" They are obviously
total morons.

Second, refer to the IEEE standards for documentation. The following
information was found on the Protel/Altium web site; refer to the IEEE
specifications as indicated:

Class Designation Letter
Default designators are assigned in accordance with Section 22 of IEEE
Std 315-1975 (Reaff 1993) "Graphic Symbols for Electrical and
Electronic Diagrams".



Graphic Symbols - Normal Mode
Logic diagrams for gates and buffers/drivers are drawn using the
time-honored, distinctive-shape logic symbols as prescribed in
appendix A of IEEE Std 91.

Simple devices, such as transistors and amplifiers, are drawn
according to IEEE Std 315-1975 (Reaff 1993), "Standard Graphic Symbols
for Electrical and Electronics Diagrams" and its supplement, IEEE Std
315A-1986.

The pin configuration for remaining components follows the layout
presented in the application schematics or the function block diagram
of the component. Additional in-house conventions have been refined to
standardise the presentation of common components.


Mark

 

[Active8]

In article <3f7a418b.9932906@news.east.cox.net>, spam@spam.com says...

On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 22:52:22 +0100, Gareth
gareth.harris@nobody.nowhere.invalid> wrote:

Our Drawing Office draws most components as rectangles which, in my
opinion, makes the schematic very hard to understand. Today I asked if
I could have amplifier symbols for my amplifiers and was told that
"nobody has triangles these days". Is this true or are our drawing
office just lazy?

I expect that what has happened is that they have become used to drawing
schematics consisting mainly of things like FPGAs, microcontrollers, etc
and don't see many analogue or discrete components.

What are peoples opinions on rectangles vs schematic symbols?

Thanks for any input,

Gareth.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
To reply to me directly:

Replace the text after the@symbol with: totalise DOT co DOT uk


First, fire everyone in your "drawing office!" They are obviously
total morons.

*after* pissing in their coffee. then send 'em packin'.

good info below if we ever need to quote chapter and verse to morons.
thanks.

brs,
mike

Second, refer to the IEEE standards for documentation. The following
information was found on the Protel/Altium web site; refer to the IEEE
specifications as indicated:

Class Designation Letter
Default designators are assigned in accordance with Section 22 of IEEE
Std 315-1975 (Reaff 1993) "Graphic Symbols for Electrical and
Electronic Diagrams".



Graphic Symbols - Normal Mode
Logic diagrams for gates and buffers/drivers are drawn using the
time-honored, distinctive-shape logic symbols as prescribed in
appendix A of IEEE Std 91.

Simple devices, such as transistors and amplifiers, are drawn
according to IEEE Std 315-1975 (Reaff 1993), "Standard Graphic Symbols
for Electrical and Electronics Diagrams" and its supplement, IEEE Std
315A-1986.

The pin configuration for remaining components follows the layout
presented in the application schematics or the function block diagram
of the component. Additional in-house conventions have been refined to
standardise the presentation of common components.


Mark

 

[Michael Black]

Jim Thompson (invalid@invalid.invalid) writes:

On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 22:52:22 +0100, Gareth
gareth.harris@nobody.nowhere.invalid> wrote:

Our Drawing Office draws most components as rectangles which, in my
opinion, makes the schematic very hard to understand. Today I asked if
I could have amplifier symbols for my amplifiers and was told that
"nobody has triangles these days". Is this true or are our drawing
office just lazy?

I expect that what has happened is that they have become used to drawing
schematics consisting mainly of things like FPGAs, microcontrollers, etc
and don't see many analogue or discrete components.

What are peoples opinions on rectangles vs schematic symbols?

Thanks for any input,

Gareth.


Your "Drawing Office" has been victimized by IEEE drawing "standards".
Remember their damned AND gate:
_______
| |
---| & |-----
---| |
|______|

Didn't last very long in the real world did it? Though they did
manage to Hertz us ;-)

...Jim Thompson

I was just about to post about those. I remember seeing some articles
about this new standard, and the new symbols even showed up, very briefly,
in a hobby magazine or two. But they didn't last long, and then
it seemed like everyone was acting like this new standard had never existed.
This was back in 1974.

Michael

 

[Bill Sloman]

Gareth <gareth.harris@nobody.nowhere.invalid> wrote in message news:<dVmeb.1492$z43.850@newsfep1-gui.server.ntli.net>...

Our Drawing Office draws most components as rectangles which, in my
opinion, makes the schematic very hard to understand. Today I asked if
I could have amplifier symbols for my amplifiers and was told that
"nobody has triangles these days". Is this true or are our drawing
office just lazy?

I expect that what has happened is that they have become used to drawing
schematics consisting mainly of things like FPGAs, microcontrollers, etc
and don't see many analogue or discrete components.

What are peoples opinions on rectangles vs schematic symbols?

Thanks for any input,

Your drawing office is trying it on. Their business is to produce
drawings that can be understood, rapidly and easily, by design
engineers, test engineers, production engineers, service engineers and
the occasional sophisticated customer.

Drawing offices have been producing drawings showing op amps as
triangles for at least some forty years now, and switching over to
rectangles is going to make the drawings harder to understand.

It may make the drawings easier to draw, but that isn't a relevant
criterion.

It may bulk large in the eyes of the drawing office, where the staff
aren't always known for their breadth of vision, and they may need to
be reminded of their actual place in the scheme of things. I've dealt
with a lot of drafts-persons in my time, and while the good ones -
mostly rejoicing in titles like "design draftsman" - were very good,
there were a lot seat warmers who took no pride in their work and had
to be motivated with both whip and carrot.

-------
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Sir Charles W. Shults III]

Here there is clearly a vested interest in the drawing office to put the
least effort into a product they get paid for. However, if it cannot be
understood with a glance (which traditional "shield" gate symbols can) then it
is useless.
The proof of the non-utility of the block style gates is in Texas
Instrument's own logic handbooks- they use the block symbols for their logic
products, but deep inside you will find that they sometimes would be forced to
place a "real" logic gate symbol to get a point across.
In other words, the system was degenerate. It is not possible to clearly
express all gate combinations properly with the block style representations.
Therefore, it is a useless piece of crap.
When it comes down to a conflict due to legibility, the user will always
win- after all, he is the *user* and must be able to understand what is being
said. Likewise, if the drafting office was laboring heartily to produce
something but it was far more ornate or time intensive than needed, they could
easily make their point based on real hours invested. This block gate system
well and truly sucks and fails on all counts.

Cheers!

Chip Shults
My robotics, space and CGI web page - http://home.cfl.rr.com/aichip

 

[Tim Shoppa]

Gareth <gareth.harris@nobody.nowhere.invalid> wrote in message news:<dVmeb.1492$z43.850@newsfep1-gui.server.ntli.net>...

Our Drawing Office draws most components as rectangles which, in my
opinion, makes the schematic very hard to understand. Today I asked if
I could have amplifier symbols for my amplifiers and was told that
"nobody has triangles these days". Is this true or are our drawing
office just lazy?

It is true, there is a worldwide shortage of triangles going on right
now. In fact, while boxes themselves are in good supply, the individual
right angles that make them up are in extreme shortage. This has led
to a very big crisis not only in computer architecture, but also in
regular building architecture.

Tim.

 

[Roy McCammon]

Gareth wrote:

Our Drawing Office draws most components as rectangles which, in my
opinion, makes the schematic very hard to understand. Today I asked if
I could have amplifier symbols for my amplifiers and was told that
"nobody has triangles these days".

pure rubbish

Is this true or are our drawing
office just lazy?

They are lazy. Inflict your will upon them. The schematic has
life and purpose long after the draftsmen are finished with it.

--
local optimization seldom leads to global optimization

my e-mail address is: rb <my last name> AT ieee DOT org

 

[Paul B]

On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 00:55:05 +0200, "Frank Bemelman"
<bemelmanx@euronet.nl.invalid> wrote:

The "nobody has triangles these days" argument sounds like a cheap
excuse, but personally I would have no problems if someone draws
opamps as rectangles. OIW, your argument "makes the schematic very
hard to understand" isn't very convincing to *me* either.

I'm with the OP on this one. The use of 'traditional' symbols aids
intuitive understanding, enables a grasp of the circuit operation to
be gained more quickly (block diagrams aside) and leads to fewer
instances of misinterpretation. IOW, as someone else has said here, it
aids communication.
--

"I expect history will be kind to me, since I intend to write it."
- Winston Churchill

 

[Ben Bradley]

I rarely post to promote my own business, but I have something that
will truly help some of the posters on these newsgroups.

In sci.electronics.design,sci.electronics.cad,
shoppa@trailing-edge.com (Tim Shoppa) wrote:

Gareth <gareth.harris@nobody.nowhere.invalid> wrote in message news:<dVmeb.1492$z43.850@newsfep1-gui.server.ntli.net>...
Our Drawing Office draws most components as rectangles which, in my
opinion, makes the schematic very hard to understand. Today I asked if
I could have amplifier symbols for my amplifiers and was told that
"nobody has triangles these days". Is this true or are our drawing
office just lazy?

It is true, there is a worldwide shortage of triangles going on right
now.

I have discovered a proprietary manufacturing technique that I am
using to make a wide range of isosceles triangles, including those
suitable for op-amps on electronics schematics.
Please contact me for a quantity quote, I can give a good price.
When you consider the clarity they gives over rectangles, these
triangles will pay for themselves many times over in the long run.

In fact, while boxes themselves are in good supply, the individual
right angles that make them up are in extreme shortage. This has led
to a very big crisis not only in computer architecture, but also in
regular building architecture.

Tim.

-----
http://mindspring.com/~benbradley

 

[Kevin G. Rhoads]

Though they did
manage to Hertz us ;-)

<tongue-in-cheek>
You'd rather commemorate Charles Proteus Steinmetz?
</tongue-in-cheek>

 

[Gareth]

Frank Bemelman wrote:

SNIP

but personally I would have no problems if someone draws
opamps as rectangles. OIW, your argument "makes the schematic very
hard to understand" isn't very convincing to *me* either.

It isn't just op amps though, I have RF amplifiers drawn as a rectangle
with connections labeled IN, OUT, GND1, GND2, this could be an
amplifier, filter, isolator or even a linear voltage regulator (and I
have all of these except the isolator on the same schematic).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
To reply to me directly:

Replace the text after the@symbol with: totalise DOT co DOT uk

 

[Active8]

In article <94zeb.32332$Of2.1587044@twister.tampabay.rr.com>,
aichipREM@OVEcfl.THISrr.com says...

Here there is clearly a vested interest in the drawing office to put the
least effort into a product they get paid for. However, if it cannot be
understood with a glance (which traditional "shield" gate symbols can) then it
is useless.
The proof of the non-utility of the block style gates is in Texas
Instrument's own logic handbooks- they use the block symbols for their logic
products, but deep inside you will find that they sometimes would be forced to
place a "real" logic gate symbol to get a point across.
In other words, the system was degenerate. It is not possible to clearly
express all gate combinations properly with the block style representations.
Therefore, it is a useless piece of crap.
When it comes down to a conflict due to legibility, the user will always
win- after all, he is the *user* and must be able to understand what is being
said. Likewise, if the drafting office was laboring heartily to produce
something but it was far more ornate or time intensive than needed, they could
easily make their point based on real hours invested. This block gate system
well and truly sucks and fails on all counts.

Cheers!

Chip Shults
My robotics, space and CGI web page - http://home.cfl.rr.com/aichip

yes. and since *you* mention *time* and *i* mentioned *template*, i may

as well add that my *templates* include logic symbols and i'll reiterate
the fact that it takes less time to draw a template symbol than a
rectangle. anyone who's never used a drafting board can take my word for
it. even a rectangle is faster with a template.

now CAD... no eraser, electric or manual needed. easy to move whole
sections of a drawing... the benefits are many.

hey. we had a vendor at the fair this year selling Staedler Mars
Rapidograph pens and plotter supplies. they had an electric eraser for
sale. i asked if they offered plotting services. the answer was no. they
don't even have a plotter.

boy, am i in the back woods or what?

brs,
mike

 

[Active8]

In article <3f7b175f.5711160@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>,
ben_nospam_bradley@mindspring.com says...

I rarely post to promote my own business, but I have something that
will truly help some of the posters on these newsgroups.

In sci.electronics.design,sci.electronics.cad,
shoppa@trailing-edge.com (Tim Shoppa) wrote:

Gareth <gareth.harris@nobody.nowhere.invalid> wrote in message news:<dVmeb.1492$z43.850@newsfep1-gui.server.ntli.net>...
Our Drawing Office draws most components as rectangles which, in my
opinion, makes the schematic very hard to understand. Today I asked if
I could have amplifier symbols for my amplifiers and was told that
"nobody has triangles these days". Is this true or are our drawing
office just lazy?

It is true, there is a worldwide shortage of triangles going on right
now.

I have discovered a proprietary manufacturing technique that I am
using to make a wide range of isosceles triangles, including those
suitable for op-amps on electronics schematics.
Please contact me for a quantity quote, I can give a good price.
When you consider the clarity they gives over rectangles, these
triangles will pay for themselves many times over in the long run.

i can beat his price and my product does equalateral triangles which
make better opamps and even generic amp symbols.

mike

In fact, while boxes themselves are in good supply, the individual
right angles that make them up are in extreme shortage. This has led
to a very big crisis not only in computer architecture, but also in
regular building architecture.

Tim.

-----
http://mindspring.com/~benbradley

 

[James Beck]

In article <3f7a09d3$0$28884$1b62eedf@news.euronet.nl>,
bemelmanx@euronet.nl.invalid says...

"Gareth" <gareth.harris@nobody.nowhere.invalid> schreef in bericht
news:dVmeb.1492$z43.850@newsfep1-gui.server.ntli.net...
Our Drawing Office draws most components as rectangles which, in my
opinion, makes the schematic very hard to understand. Today I asked if
I could have amplifier symbols for my amplifiers and was told that
"nobody has triangles these days". Is this true or are our drawing
office just lazy?

I expect that what has happened is that they have become used to drawing
schematics consisting mainly of things like FPGAs, microcontrollers, etc
and don't see many analogue or discrete components.

What are peoples opinions on rectangles vs schematic symbols?

The "nobody has triangles these days" argument sounds like a cheap
excuse, but personally I would have no problems if someone draws
opamps as rectangles. OIW, your argument "makes the schematic very
hard to understand" isn't very convincing to *me* either.

But you can always quit your job, look at it from the bright side

Schematic symbols are a fairly universal language. That was kind of the
idea. Sure, you can ferret out the meaning of this guys stripped down
symbology by reading EVERYTHING, but the idea of using the symbolic
shorthand was so you KNOW what that part is at a glance. I don't know
about you, but I have been looking at "proper" schematics for so long I
can read them at a glance. No need to read every single solitary
definition in every box to get the function.
It is like writing a book using one word but excusing it away by putting
the definition the word *should* have next to it. Sure, you can get at
the story but why work that hard?

Jim

 

[JeffM]

What I want to know--beyond how drafting drones are dictating to engineering--
is why is this not being done with a drawing software
which includes standard electronics symbols?

At the very least, have them construct a library of standard electronics symbols
--subject to YOUR approval--for the graphics package they are using.