resistor symbol dilema

justin · Mar 7, 2005

To make a story short, I need to submit _identical_
schematic to both US and EU. Although this may
seem as a mere tomhato/tomato issue, I've had some
comments before where people in the US were
___
frowning about -|___|- while UK has a -/\/\/-
issue.

So the dilema is, which one is globaly more aceptable?
The " make one of each!" approach won't work.

j.

Mar 7, 2005

seem as a mere tomhato/tomato issue, I've had some
comments before where people in the US were
___
frowning about -|___|- while UK has a -/\/\/-

I'm an Australian (block style symbol

working on a US campus of a
multinational company, and we use the wiggly heater style symbol in all
schematics generated domestically.

Some European companies that we acquired still use the box symbol
several years after acquisition. They don't want the effort of updating
their CAD libraries, since every single schematic would be affected.

Just don't mix and match on the same schematic, and anybody who
complains can safely be ignored. It would only be an issue if you used
both styles in one dwg, since there is a semantic difference between
the two symbols.

John Larkin · Mar 7, 2005

On 6 Mar 2005 18:06:07 -0800, larwe@larwe.com wrote:

seem as a mere tomhato/tomato issue, I've had some
comments before where people in the US were
___
frowning about -|___|- while UK has a -/\/\/-

I'm an Australian (block style symbol working on a US campus of a
multinational company, and we use the wiggly heater style symbol in all
schematics generated domestically.

Some European companies that we acquired still use the box symbol
several years after acquisition. They don't want the effort of updating
their CAD libraries, since every single schematic would be affected.

Just don't mix and match on the same schematic, and anybody who
complains can safely be ignored. It would only be an issue if you used
both styles in one dwg, since there is a semantic difference between
the two symbols.

I wonder when the Brits and Australians cut over to boxes. I have a
British book, Millimicrosecond Pulse Techniques (1959) and the
Australian Radiotron Designer's Handbook (1940) and both are
squiggles.

John

Dwayne · Mar 7, 2005

"justin" <justin.c@se.net> wrote in message
news:060320051744366512%justin.c@se.net...

To make a story short, I need to submit _identical_
schematic to both US and EU. Although this may
seem as a mere tomhato/tomato issue, I've had some
comments before where people in the US were
___
frowning about -|___|- while UK has a -/\/\/-
issue.

So the dilema is, which one is globaly more aceptable?
The " make one of each!" approach won't work.

j.

Put the squiggle in the box. No one will like it, but everyone will
understand it.

Dwayne

Tim Hubberstey · Mar 7, 2005

John Larkin wrote:

On 6 Mar 2005 18:06:07 -0800, larwe@larwe.com wrote:

seem as a mere tomhato/tomato issue, I've had some
comments before where people in the US were
___
frowning about -|___|- while UK has a -/\/\/-

I'm an Australian (block style symbol working on a US campus of a
multinational company, and we use the wiggly heater style symbol in all
schematics generated domestically.

Some European companies that we acquired still use the box symbol
several years after acquisition. They don't want the effort of updating
their CAD libraries, since every single schematic would be affected.

Just don't mix and match on the same schematic, and anybody who
complains can safely be ignored. It would only be an issue if you used
both styles in one dwg, since there is a semantic difference between
the two symbols.

I wonder when the Brits and Australians cut over to boxes. I have a
British book, Millimicrosecond Pulse Techniques (1959) and the
Australian Radiotron Designer's Handbook (1940) and both are
squiggles.

There was a big push when CAD systems first came into use to reduce
everything to boxes.

I think that the reason was that drawing anything other than straight
lines at right angles was very slow for the computers and plotters
available at the time. I remember watching plotters whipping along
drawing straight lines but then slowing to a crawl when they had to do a
circle or arc. I believe this is why the idiotic IEEE-style symbols were
born.
--
Tim Hubberstey, P.Eng. . . . . . Hardware/Software Consulting Engineer
Marmot Engineering . . . . . . . VHDL, ASICs, FPGAs, embedded systems
Vancouver, BC, Canada . . . . . . . . . . . http://www.marmot-eng.com

Luhan Monat · Mar 7, 2005

Dwayne wrote:

Put the squiggle in the box. No one will like it, but everyone will
understand it.

Squiggle-in-a-box. I love it - schematic Esperanto.

--
Luhan Monat (luhanis 'at' yahoo 'dot' com)
"The future is not what it used to be..."
http://members.cox.net/berniekm

Rich Grise · Mar 7, 2005

On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 02:46:15 +0000, Tim Hubberstey wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On 6 Mar 2005 18:06:07 -0800, larwe@larwe.com wrote:
seem as a mere tomhato/tomato issue, I've had some
comments before where people in the US were
frowning about -|___|- while UK has a -/\/\/-
I'm an Australian (block style symbol working on a US campus of a
multinational company, and we use the wiggly heater style symbol in all
schematics generated domestically.
_ _ _

Actually, a "heater" is: ----' |_| |_| |_,--
;-)

I wonder when the Brits and Australians cut over to boxes. I have a
British book, Millimicrosecond Pulse Techniques (1959) and the
Australian Radiotron Designer's Handbook (1940) and both are
squiggles.

I think that the reason was that drawing anything other than straight
lines at right angles was very slow for the computers and plotters
available at the time. I remember watching plotters whipping along
drawing straight lines but then slowing to a crawl when they had to do a
circle or arc. I believe this is why the idiotic IEEE-style symbols were
born.

So, since we all have whiz-bang plotters, we should standardize on
zigzaggies for resistors, and loopies for inductors, right?

I also remember seeing plotters doing circles, but at human-perceptible
speeds. ;-)

How about the curved line/box for polar caps?

Personally, I'd say, just be consistent.

Or, set your own standard, and put in in as a chapter in your ISO9005
manual. ;-)

For some reason, one of my inner homunculi is getting a message, "Use
the Euro Style!" Hmmmm....

And, of course, in ASCIImatics, R is -[R]-, L is -[L]-, and C is -| |-.

Cheers!
Rich

Rich Grise · Mar 7, 2005

On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 20:39:36 -0800, Luhan Monat wrote:

Dwayne wrote:

Put the squiggle in the box. No one will like it, but everyone will
understand it.

Squiggle-in-a-box. I love it - schematic Esperanto.

No, that will confuse everybody even worse. "What's this? A heating
element in a box?"

One compromise might be a box with a textual 'R' (or 'L', or whatever,
like "=1" for "OR gate" an' shit)

And, yes, I've seen boxed resistors that mean "a resistor in a box",
albeit that box is typically a dashed line.

Ah! I've got it! If you want to go truly international, look at how
the Chinese are doing it.

Cheers!
Rich

budgie · Mar 7, 2005

On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 18:18:36 -0800, John Larkin
<jjSNIPlarkin@highTHISlandPLEASEtechnology.XXX> wrote:

On 6 Mar 2005 18:06:07 -0800, larwe@larwe.com wrote:

seem as a mere tomhato/tomato issue, I've had some
comments before where people in the US were
___
frowning about -|___|- while UK has a -/\/\/-

I'm an Australian (block style symbol working on a US campus of a
multinational company, and we use the wiggly heater style symbol in all
schematics generated domestically.

Some European companies that we acquired still use the box symbol
several years after acquisition. They don't want the effort of updating
their CAD libraries, since every single schematic would be affected.

Just don't mix and match on the same schematic, and anybody who
complains can safely be ignored. It would only be an issue if you used
both styles in one dwg, since there is a semantic difference between
the two symbols.

I wonder when the Brits and Australians cut over to boxes. I have a
British book, Millimicrosecond Pulse Techniques (1959) and the
Australian Radiotron Designer's Handbook (1940) and both are
squiggles.

IIRC it was embodied here in Oz in an australian standard (AS1100 part 2 or
something near that) and would date to the late 80's. Prior to that out govco
outfit using stencils and drawing board used the zigzag. Then the wise men said
we had to go with the "new standard" which seemed to parallel what we had been
used to in euro schematics from the likes of Philips.

Rich Grise · Mar 7, 2005

On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 01:08:09 -0500, Spehro Pefhany wrote:

Then you have to decide whether to use the 4K7 or 4.7K style, and
whether to write 0.01uF or 10nF. ;-)

Just for the sake of throwing a monkey wrench into the gears,
there's a style, "4R7K", where they use the character 'R' to
represent the decimal point. The way I understand it, this
came from the military, and was popular among hams, at least
in the 1960's-1970's. 1980's?

Cheers!
Rich

John Woodgate · Mar 7, 2005

I read in sci.electronics.design that John Larkin <jjSNIPlarkin@highTHIS
landPLEASEtechnology.XXX> wrote (in <v9en21dtqmm19ommccna2s18e07k9ifoo5@
4ax.com&gt

about 'resistor symbol dilema', on Sun, 6 Mar 2005:

I wonder when the Brits and Australians cut over to boxes. I have a
British book, Millimicrosecond Pulse Techniques (1959) and the
Australian Radiotron Designer's Handbook (1940) and both are squiggles.

Much later; mid 70s IIRC.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

John Fields · Mar 7, 2005

On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 04:55:56 GMT, Rich Grise <richgrise@example.net>
wrote:

Personally, I'd say, just be consistent.

Or, set your own standard, and put in in as a chapter in your ISO9005
manual. ;-)

For some reason, one of my inner homunculi is getting a message, "Use
the Euro Style!" Hmmmm....

And, of course, in ASCIImatics, R is -[R]-, L is -[L]-, and C is -| |-.

---
For consistency, I prefer -[C]-

--
John Fields

John Woodgate · Mar 7, 2005

I read in sci.electronics.design that John Fields <jfields@austininstrum
ents.com> wrote (in <5vqo21h7gmctsi3ee2tt5tc2j1uiskotg3@4ax.com&gt

about
'resistor symbol dilema', on Mon, 7 Mar 2005:

On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 04:55:56 GMT, Rich Grise <richgrise@example.net
wrote:

Personally, I'd say, just be consistent.

Or, set your own standard, and put in in as a chapter in your ISO9005
manual. ;-)

For some reason, one of my inner homunculi is getting a message, "Use
the Euro Style!" Hmmmm....

And, of course, in ASCIImatics, R is -[R]-, L is -[L]-, and C is -| |-.

---
For consistency, I prefer -[C]-

.... and for persistency, [P], of course. (;-)

--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

Frank Bemelman · Mar 7, 2005

"Spehro Pefhany" <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> schreef in bericht
news:n7rn2153rh94stc5tm9aqldn1jmnsj26ab@4ax.com...

Then you have to decide whether to use the 4K7 or 4.7K style, and
whether to write 0.01uF or 10nF. ;-)

Or use what you use verbally. Do you say 'one-hundredth microfarad', or
'ten nanofarad'. It seems that 'one-hundredth microfarad' is verbally
close to 'one-hundred microfarad'

--
Thanks, Frank.
(remove 'q' and 'invalid' when replying by email)

John Woodgate · Mar 7, 2005

I read in sci.electronics.design that Joerg <notthisjoergsch@removethisp
acbell.net> wrote (in <if2Xd.12868$OU1.9103@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com&gt

about 'resistor symbol dilema', on Mon, 7 Mar 2005:

Hello Spehro,

... As someone else suggested, pick one style and use it
consistently. ...

Yes. And put earplugs in until the complaint noise has subsided to a
acceptable level ;-) I mean, there are more important things to ponder
in life than whether a resistor is squiggly or boxy.

They are different, but equally beautiful.

Then you have to decide whether to use the 4K7 or 4.7K style, and
whether to write 0.01uF or 10nF. ;-)

How 'bout 0.01mmF? That would be the really classy way.

Not at all. '1 jar' or '9000 cm' would be REALLY classy!

--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

Spehro Pefhany · Mar 7, 2005

On Mon, 7 Mar 2005 21:26:07 +0100, the renowned "Frank Bemelman"
<f.bemelmanq@xs4all.invalid.nl> wrote:

"Spehro Pefhany" <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> schreef in bericht
news:n7rn2153rh94stc5tm9aqldn1jmnsj26ab@4ax.com...

Then you have to decide whether to use the 4K7 or 4.7K style, and
whether to write 0.01uF or 10nF. ;-)

Or use what you use verbally. Do you say 'one-hundredth microfarad', or
'ten nanofarad'. It seems that 'one-hundredth microfarad' is verbally
close to 'one-hundred microfarad'

I'm equally comfortable with "point-oh-one" and "ten-en". ;-)

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

Guy Macon · Mar 7, 2005

Frank Bemelman wrote:

"Spehro Pefhany" schreef...

Then you have to decide whether to use the 4K7 or 4.7K style, and
whether to write 0.01uF or 10nF. ;-)

Or use what you use verbally. Do you say 'one-hundredth microfarad', or
'ten nanofarad'. It seems that 'one-hundredth microfarad' is verbally
close to 'one-hundred microfarad'

Everyone I know says some variation of "point one microfarad."
or "point one oof (uF)." I do prefer nanofarads, though.
It is silly to skip a metric prefix when discussing capacitance
but not when discussing time.

Tim Hubberstey · Mar 7, 2005

Spehro Pefhany wrote:

On Mon, 7 Mar 2005 21:26:07 +0100, the renowned "Frank Bemelman"
f.bemelmanq@xs4all.invalid.nl> wrote:

"Spehro Pefhany" <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> schreef in bericht
news:n7rn2153rh94stc5tm9aqldn1jmnsj26ab@4ax.com...

Then you have to decide whether to use the 4K7 or 4.7K style, and
whether to write 0.01uF or 10nF. ;-)

Or use what you use verbally. Do you say 'one-hundredth microfarad', or
'ten nanofarad'. It seems that 'one-hundredth microfarad' is verbally
close to 'one-hundred microfarad'

I'm equally comfortable with "point-oh-one" and "ten-en". ;-)

Since the base unit for marking caps is the pF (a cap marked 104 is
100000 pF or 100 nF), I think we should create a new unit called the
'Fad' (shortened Farad) with the Latin 'f' () designated as the unit
symbol. Then we can have m, , k, M, and G, and be consistent with
resistors. (sorry if the unicode doesn't show up properly)

Of course, then we'd have to do something about Henries too. Maybe
define 1 uH as a 'Hank' with symbol 'h' . . .

(Tongue very firmly planted in cheek).

)
--
Tim Hubberstey, P.Eng. . . . . . Hardware/Software Consulting Engineer
Marmot Engineering . . . . . . . VHDL, ASICs, FPGAs, embedded systems
Vancouver, BC, Canada . . . . . . . . . . . http://www.marmot-eng.com

Spehro Pefhany · Mar 7, 2005

On Mon, 7 Mar 2005 20:42:36 +0000, the renowned John Woodgate
<jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that Frank Bemelman <f.bemelmanq@xs4all
.invalid.nl> wrote (in <422cb87d$0$43127$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl&gt about
'resistor symbol dilema', on Mon, 7 Mar 2005:
"Spehro Pefhany" <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> schreef in bericht
news:n7rn2153rh94stc5tm9aqldn1jmnsj26ab@4ax.com...

Then you have to decide whether to use the 4K7 or 4.7K style, and
whether to write 0.01uF or 10nF. ;-)

Or use what you use verbally. Do you say 'one-hundredth microfarad', or
'ten nanofarad'. It seems that 'one-hundredth microfarad' is verbally
close to 'one-hundred microfarad'

'Oh point oh-one microfarad'. 'Ten nF' is much easier. Especially if
it's actually 15 nF!

Unless you're dictating what should be written, you don't really need
the leading "oh" when you're speaking the value-- it purpose is to
keep the flyspeck "." decimal point from being lost. The word "point"
is big enough to defend itself.

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

Guy Macon · Mar 7, 2005

John Woodgate wrote:

we call them 'Leyden jars' in English, and in particular the
Royal Navy used the jar as a defined unit of capacitance
up to the mid-1930s.

Hmmm. I wonder how much of a HV charge a CRT could hold.
Enought to give one a jolt and make them drop the tube?

resistor symbol dilema

justin

Guest

Guest

John Larkin

Guest

Dwayne

Guest

Tim Hubberstey

Guest

Luhan Monat

Guest

Rich Grise

Guest

Rich Grise

Guest

budgie

Guest

Rich Grise

Guest

John Woodgate

Guest

John Fields

Guest

John Woodgate

Guest

Frank Bemelman

Guest

John Woodgate

Guest

Spehro Pefhany

Guest

Guy Macon

Guest

Tim Hubberstey

Guest

Spehro Pefhany

Guest

Guy Macon

Guest

Log in

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor