Schematics & standards

[David Nebenzahl]

On 6/20/2010 7:09 PM sparky spake thus:

On Jun 18, 4:18 pm, David Nebenzahl <nob...@but.us.chickens> 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 here: 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)

 

[sparky]

On Jun 18, 4:18 pm, David Nebenzahl <nob...@but.us.chickens> 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.

 

[Falk Willberg]

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 here: 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

 

[Arfa Daily]

"David Nebenzahl" <nobody@but.us.chickens> wrote in message
news:4c1ec026$0$2376$822641b3@news.adtechcomputers.com...

On 6/20/2010 5:33 PM Arfa Daily spake thus:

"Cydrome Leader" <presence@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote in message
news:hvlhh5$8rh$2@reader1.panix.com...

Arfa Daily <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote:

"Cydrome Leader" <presence@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote in message
news:hvk3bu$3ju$1@reader1.panix.com...

David Nebenzahl <nobody@but.us.chickens> 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.

But surely, it is you who misses the point. Considering that 30 or 40 years
ago, just about all semiconductor houses were American, then is it not
likely that it was an American company that came up with the system of
marking zener diodes? And why would you imagine it was done ? Why to avoid
any ambiguity caused by poorly printed decimal points, of course ...

I suppose you're also one of those Luddites who likes to see all of the
capacitor values in decimals of a microfarad as well, or have you caught up
to nF ?

I'm all for not changing systems that are tried and tested just for the sake
of it, but I'm just as happy to embrace change where it has a positive
benefit. And there is one here. All I can say is that if you have never seen
a poorly reproduced schematic where the component identifiers and values are
hard to read, then either you are not professionally involved in service
work, or you are lying to keep pressing your point.

Arfa

 

[Arfa Daily]

"David Nebenzahl" <nobody@but.us.chickens> wrote in message
news:4c1ec140$0$2377$822641b3@news.adtechcomputers.com...

On 6/20/2010 3:25 PM PlainBill47@yahoo.com spake thus:

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.

I'll say "point taken", even though you are obviously disagreeing with my
(and others') objection to the 8K2 system of ohmic representations.

One could just as easily turn that statement of yours around to wonder how
the committee that mandated this new system of nomenclature has a right to
impose their will on us, as the "god-given right to dictate the 'right'
way to do things".

I just think it's needless, therefore not an improvement, as opposed to
how living in houses is obviously an improvement over seeking shelter in
trees at night.

(or is it? ... )

It's not 'mandated'. Nobody has forced their will on anybody. It's nothing
to do with committees, European based or otherwise. I know we have some
pretty dumb laws and such forced on us by the Euromachine, but it hasn't
reached the point yet where they are dictating how we draw schematics. It's
just a system that someone somewhere - probably a Japanese or Korean
manufacturer, has come up with because they feel that it removes any
possibility of ambiguity on a component value. It's a bit like putting
traffic light turn filter arrows on junctions. For sure, you could argue
that it's not strictly necessary in order to be able to successfully
negotiate the junction. You can do that on a green light alone. But putting
a filter arrow there, removes any ambiguity from when it's safe to go,
particularly for less experienced drivers, or those not absolutely familiar
with a junction.

And as to voltages, some schematics do now use the system for showing
voltages that are in decimal parts. "3V3" is commonly found on schematics.
It's also common now to find the same system in use for capacitors, so 4n7
for instance or 2u2. Whether you like the system or not, it seems to be
getting used more and more, so I think it's a case of learn it and accept
it. It's really no more difficult than any system currently in use, just
different, and it *can* under some circumstances, be an improvement.

Arfa

 

[Cydrome Leader]

Arfa Daily <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote:

"David Nebenzahl" <nobody@but.us.chickens> wrote in message
news:4c1ec026$0$2376$822641b3@news.adtechcomputers.com...
On 6/20/2010 5:33 PM Arfa Daily spake thus:

"Cydrome Leader" <presence@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote in message
news:hvlhh5$8rh$2@reader1.panix.com...

Arfa Daily <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote:

"Cydrome Leader" <presence@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote in message
news:hvk3bu$3ju$1@reader1.panix.com...

David Nebenzahl <nobody@but.us.chickens> 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.



But surely, it is you who misses the point. Considering that 30 or 40 years

no, it's you that doesn't get it.

ago, just about all semiconductor houses were American, then is it not
likely that it was an American company that came up with the system of
marking zener diodes? And why would you imagine it was done ? Why to avoid
any ambiguity caused by poorly printed decimal points, of course ...

you mean like a 1N5351?

I suppose you're also one of those Luddites who likes to see all of the
capacitor values in decimals of a microfarad as well, or have you caught up
to nF ?

I'm all for not changing systems that are tried and tested just for the sake
of it, but I'm just as happy to embrace change where it has a positive
benefit. And there is one here. All I can say is that if you have never seen
a poorly reproduced schematic where the component identifiers and values are
hard to read, then either you are not professionally involved in service
work, or you are lying to keep pressing your point.

So when is the last time you got confused over "missing" periods again?

seriously.

 

[Cydrome Leader]

David Nebenzahl <nobody@but.us.chickens> wrote:

On 6/20/2010 7:09 PM sparky spake thus:

On Jun 18, 4:18 pm, David Nebenzahl <nob...@but.us.chickens> 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 here: 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 short answer is they don't know, and like being slaves to stupid
committees.

 

[Arfa Daily]

"Cydrome Leader" <presence@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote in message
news:hvo9oo$qsj$5@reader1.panix.com...

David Nebenzahl <nobody@but.us.chickens> wrote:
On 6/20/2010 7:09 PM sparky spake thus:

On Jun 18, 4:18 pm, David Nebenzahl <nob...@but.us.chickens> 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 here: 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 short answer is they don't know, and like being slaves to stupid
committees.

Clearly, you can't read, which is why you probably can't understand a simple
system. Twat.

Arfa

 

[Cydrome Leader]

Arfa Daily <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote:

"Cydrome Leader" <presence@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote in message
news:hvo9oo$qsj$5@reader1.panix.com...
David Nebenzahl <nobody@but.us.chickens> wrote:
On 6/20/2010 7:09 PM sparky spake thus:

On Jun 18, 4:18 pm, David Nebenzahl <nob...@but.us.chickens> 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 here: 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 short answer is they don't know, and like being slaves to stupid
committees.

Clearly, you can't read, which is why you probably can't understand a simple
system. Twat.

Arfa

that's right, I can't read. I can't see periods and get really confused.

 

[Franc Zabkar]

On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 10:10:10 +0100, "Arfa Daily"
<arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> 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.