Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.electronics.design > #461231 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-05-22 03:02 -0500 |
| Last post | 2017-05-31 17:53 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 140 — 18 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.electronics.design
Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> - 2017-05-22 03:02 -0500
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Winfield Hill <hill@rowland.harvard.edu> - 2017-05-22 03:51 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-05-22 08:26 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> - 2017-05-22 21:23 -0500
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-05-23 14:07 +1000
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2017-05-23 12:00 -0400
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-05-24 08:48 +1000
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? pcdhobbs@gmail.com - 2017-05-23 16:53 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-27 17:22 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-05-27 17:55 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-28 11:48 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-05-28 12:39 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-05-28 16:02 +1000
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> - 2017-05-28 07:46 -0500
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-28 11:56 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-05-28 12:43 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-05-22 21:18 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> - 2017-05-23 03:36 -0500
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-05-23 07:31 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-23 20:02 -0400
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-05-23 21:07 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-24 18:50 -0400
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-05-22 06:25 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Winfield Hill <hill@rowland.harvard.edu> - 2017-05-22 07:13 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-05-22 08:21 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-05-23 00:07 -0400
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-05-22 21:22 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-05-25 10:40 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Jan Panteltje <pNa0nStpealmtje@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-25 18:03 +0000
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-25 14:41 -0400
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> - 2017-05-26 09:07 -0500
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Jan Panteltje <pNa0nStpealmtje@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-26 14:24 +0000
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-05-26 08:38 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Winfield Hill <hill@rowland.harvard.edu> - 2017-05-26 10:08 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-05-26 10:19 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Winfield Hill <hill@rowland.harvard.edu> - 2017-05-26 12:15 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-05-26 12:29 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Winfield Hill <hill@rowland.harvard.edu> - 2017-05-26 13:41 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-05-26 16:21 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Winfield Hill <hill@rowland.harvard.edu> - 2017-05-26 19:05 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-05-26 19:09 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-05-28 09:58 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> - 2017-05-27 06:13 -0500
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Winfield Hill <hill@rowland.harvard.edu> - 2017-05-27 05:51 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-27 12:11 -0400
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? pcdhobbs@gmail.com - 2017-05-27 10:12 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-27 13:25 -0400
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-05-27 12:13 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> - 2017-05-28 07:57 -0500
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-27 21:14 +0100
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Winfield Hill <hill@rowland.harvard.edu> - 2017-05-27 19:24 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Jan Panteltje <pNa0nStpealmtje@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-28 07:50 +0000
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Winfield Hill <hill@rowland.harvard.edu> - 2017-05-28 04:55 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Jan Panteltje <pNa0nStpealmtje@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-28 17:57 +0000
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-05-27 19:53 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-05-27 20:15 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> - 2017-05-28 08:04 -0500
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? pcdhobbs@gmail.com - 2017-05-27 21:32 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Winfield Hill <hill@rowland.harvard.edu> - 2017-05-28 04:13 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? pcdhobbs@gmail.com - 2017-05-28 06:29 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? pcdhobbs@gmail.com - 2017-05-28 06:46 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Winfield Hill <hill@rowland.harvard.edu> - 2017-05-28 07:19 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-05-28 09:18 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Winfield Hill <hill@rowland.harvard.edu> - 2017-05-28 14:19 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-05-28 09:34 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-05-28 09:44 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-05-28 09:49 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-05-28 09:59 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-05-28 10:36 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-05-28 10:58 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-28 12:07 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-05-28 13:22 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-28 13:06 -0400
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? pcdhobbs@gmail.com - 2017-05-28 12:26 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-05-28 13:19 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-05-28 13:19 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-05-28 13:44 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-05-28 13:49 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? pcdhobbs@gmail.com - 2017-05-28 14:05 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? pcdhobbs@gmail.com - 2017-05-28 14:10 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-05-28 16:22 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-28 19:37 -0400
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-05-28 18:41 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-29 00:36 -0400
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? pcdhobbs@gmail.com - 2017-05-29 05:22 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-05-29 07:50 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-05-30 07:44 +1000
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-29 18:33 -0400
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Jan Panteltje <pNa0nStpealmtje@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-29 15:25 +0000
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Jan Panteltje <pNa0nStpealmtje@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-29 15:31 +0000
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Jan Panteltje <pNa0nStpealmtje@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-29 15:32 +0000
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-05-30 15:14 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-05-30 17:05 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? pcdhobbs@gmail.com - 2017-05-30 17:33 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-05-30 18:53 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-30 22:04 -0400
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2017-05-31 10:11 -0400
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-31 10:27 -0400
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2017-05-31 10:39 -0400
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-05-31 08:25 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-05-31 08:31 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-05-31 08:50 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-31 22:34 -0400
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2017-05-31 15:50 +0100
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-31 22:38 -0400
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-05-31 08:19 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? pcdhobbs@gmail.com - 2017-05-30 21:36 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-05-31 16:01 +1000
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-31 17:46 -0400
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-30 21:56 -0400
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Winfield Hill <hill@rowland.harvard.edu> - 2017-05-31 05:01 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-31 09:03 -0400
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Winfield Hill <hill@rowland.harvard.edu> - 2017-05-31 07:09 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Jan Panteltje <pNa0nStpealmtje@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-31 14:23 +0000
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-31 10:30 -0400
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-05-31 08:38 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Jan Panteltje <pNa0nStpealmtje@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-31 14:21 +0000
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> - 2017-05-31 17:00 +0200
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-05-31 08:14 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-05-31 08:40 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-31 17:49 -0400
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Winfield Hill <hill@rowland.harvard.edu> - 2017-05-28 14:30 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? pcdhobbs@gmail.com - 2017-05-28 15:14 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-05-28 15:25 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-05-28 16:23 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> - 2017-05-28 08:03 -0500
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-05-30 15:18 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> - 2017-05-30 23:27 -0500
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-26 12:33 -0400
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> - 2017-05-26 10:14 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> - 2017-05-27 06:10 -0500
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-05-27 08:11 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> - 2017-05-28 07:53 -0500
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-05-28 08:06 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-28 12:13 -0400
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-05-27 16:38 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-05-31 09:37 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> - 2017-05-31 13:50 -0500
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-05-31 12:12 -0700
Re: Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-31 17:53 -0400
Page 1 of 7 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-22 03:02 -0500 |
| Subject | Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols? |
| Message-ID | <ofu5o7$ub1$1@dont-email.me> |
Proof in case: http://www.ecnmag.com/sites/ecnmag.com/files/legacyimages/ECN/Articles/CS-1109-Figure_02.jpg It's bad enough that AoE3 stooped to using those MOSFET symbols. (The only problem I can find with the tome! Why did it have to be such an important, and deceptive, problem!? Please Win, if you fix this in a reprint, I will send you the finest bottle of liquor I can find.) And now look at this. You know what's worst? (Maybe not. You can't tell! Because there's no device that exists that can be described by that symbol!) The more common convention is to draw them like BJTs, where the arrow is used to indicate the common terminal. In further analogy, the arrow is usually outwards, for "NPN MOSFETs", as it were. Which means, by the "most common convention", this circuit is a direct short from VCC to output to GND. This figure is wrong by the "most common convention". Except, if you try to read some meaning from those arrows, instead of forcing some other meaning upon them: this circuit is "right", in that the arrows show the direction of conventional current flow through the body diode. Which IS what the little arrow in a normal MOSFET symbol means, in the first place. And is why any symbol with an "antiparallel diode" is redundant*. (*Except maybe "FETky" types -- I don't know.) It's almost like they... simply forgot to put the source connection in, and draw the channel as enhancement mode (dashed). They could almost be forgiven for such an omission! Whereas, the "most common convention" symbol deserves no forgiveness; it is only madness. I'd say "rant over", but it's not over until people actually realize that, when they write things, you know, they're writing things that actually mean something! The original MOSFET symbol is not just some random assemblage of lines. The lines mean something! Ugh! Tim -- Seven Transistor Labs, LLC Electrical Engineering Consultation and Contract Design Website: http://seventransistorlabs.com
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Winfield Hill <hill@rowland.harvard.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-22 03:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ofufrp02mta@drn.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #461231 |
Tim Williams wrote...
>
>Proof in case:
>
>http://www.ecnmag.com/sites/ecnmag.com/files/legacyimages/ECN/Articles/CS-1109-Figure_02.jpg
>
>It's bad enough that AoE3 stooped to using those MOSFET symbols. (The only
>problem I can find with the tome! Why did it have to be such an important,
>and deceptive, problem!? Please Win, if you fix this in a reprint, I will
>send you the finest bottle of liquor I can find.)
The symbols in the ECN figure are simply wrong,
by my opinion. I first adopted the use of the
simplified MOSFET symbols (with arrows like BJTs),
because the trend is toward streamlined drafting
and uncluttered symbols. Many IC designers further
simplify by eliminating any arrows, assuming the
reader can surmise which is n-channel or p-channel.
> The more common convention is to draw them like BJTs,
> where the arrow is used to indicate the common terminal.
> In further analogy, the arrow is usually outwards,
> for "NPN MOSFETs", as it were.
Yes, right. But you're unhappy with that in AoE?
> The original MOSFET symbol is not just some random
> assemblage of lines. The lines mean something!
Yes, exactly, but to my taste, there are too damn many
lines for everyday use, now that we're using MOSFETs
by the barrel, like we used to use BJT transistors.
My latest amplifier has 50 of them. OK, it's a 10kV
amplifier, but still, gotta keep drawings readable.
--
Thanks,
- Win
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-22 08:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bg06ic5vlc4q8fjqnp8uii6l8i124u6ce8@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #461234 |
On 22 May 2017 03:51:37 -0700, Winfield Hill <hill@rowland.harvard.edu> wrote: >Tim Williams wrote... >> >>Proof in case: >> >>http://www.ecnmag.com/sites/ecnmag.com/files/legacyimages/ECN/Articles/CS-1109-Figure_02.jpg >> >>It's bad enough that AoE3 stooped to using those MOSFET symbols. (The only >>problem I can find with the tome! Why did it have to be such an important, >>and deceptive, problem!? Please Win, if you fix this in a reprint, I will >>send you the finest bottle of liquor I can find.) > > The symbols in the ECN figure are simply wrong, > by my opinion. I first adopted the use of the > simplified MOSFET symbols (with arrows like BJTs), > because the trend is toward streamlined drafting > and uncluttered symbols. Many IC designers further > simplify by eliminating any arrows, assuming the > reader can surmise which is n-channel or p-channel. Some people add a bubble to the gate of a p-fet, but still don't distinguish between source and drain. I like the way you/we draw mosfets. It's clean and intuitive. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/53724080/Circuits/Amps/LM5112.jpg > >> The more common convention is to draw them like BJTs, >> where the arrow is used to indicate the common terminal. >> In further analogy, the arrow is usually outwards, >> for "NPN MOSFETs", as it were. > > Yes, right. But you're unhappy with that in AoE? > >> The original MOSFET symbol is not just some random >> assemblage of lines. The lines mean something! > > Yes, exactly, but to my taste, there are too damn many > lines for everyday use, now that we're using MOSFETs > by the barrel, like we used to use BJT transistors. > My latest amplifier has 50 of them. OK, it's a 10kV > amplifier, but still, gotta keep drawings readable. Please show us if you can. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc lunatic fringe electronics
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-22 21:23 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <og067t$iqf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #461234 |
"Winfield Hill" <hill@rowland.harvard.edu> wrote in message news:ofufrp02mta@drn.newsguy.com... > Yes, exactly, but to my taste, there are too damn many > lines for everyday use, now that we're using MOSFETs > by the barrel, like we used to use BJT transistors. > My latest amplifier has 50 of them. OK, it's a 10kV > amplifier, but still, gotta keep drawings readable. What? But?! You're _literally_ half a century late! Every person on Earth has a supercomputer, in their pocket, that is able to solve this problem! You make the symbol once, and copy-and-paste it wherever you need it! I mean, there is absolutely, positively no work lost, using electronic formats, with symbols as complicated, as baroque, as you can dream of. Printers are 100% vector to raster, thanks again to computers. No time lost there. If you need to take the shortcut just when diagramming something by hand, alright, but leaving that in? Deceptive AND lazy, my god... :-( Tim -- Seven Transistor Labs, LLC Electrical Engineering Consultation and Contract Design Website: http://seventransistorlabs.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-23 14:07 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <uAOUA.126047$Br6.100123@fx42.iad> |
| In reply to | #461314 |
On 23/05/17 12:23, Tim Williams wrote: > "Winfield Hill" <hill@rowland.harvard.edu> wrote in message > news:ofufrp02mta@drn.newsguy.com... >> Yes, exactly, but to my taste, there are too damn many >> lines for everyday use, now that we're using MOSFETs >> by the barrel, like we used to use BJT transistors. >> My latest amplifier has 50 of them. OK, it's a 10kV >> amplifier, but still, gotta keep drawings readable. > > What? > > But?! > > You're _literally_ half a century late! > > Every person on Earth has a supercomputer, in their pocket, that is able > to solve this problem! You make the symbol once, and copy-and-paste it > wherever you need it! > > I mean, there is absolutely, positively no work lost, using electronic > formats, with symbols as complicated, as baroque, as you can dream of. > > Printers are 100% vector to raster, thanks again to computers. No time > lost there. > > If you need to take the shortcut just when diagramming something by > hand, alright, but leaving that in? Deceptive AND lazy, my god... :-( Tim, A drawing short-cut is also a visual one. I personally quite like the simplified symbols. They're easy on the eye. They don't reflect reality, but neither does any other symbol, in any alphabet. That's why they're called "symbols". Clifford Heath.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-23 12:00 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <689d003d-0eb9-87b6-3348-bbef47e15bfc@electrooptical.net> |
| In reply to | #461318 |
On 05/23/2017 12:07 AM, Clifford Heath wrote: > On 23/05/17 12:23, Tim Williams wrote: >> "Winfield Hill" <hill@rowland.harvard.edu> wrote in message >> news:ofufrp02mta@drn.newsguy.com... >>> Yes, exactly, but to my taste, there are too damn many >>> lines for everyday use, now that we're using MOSFETs >>> by the barrel, like we used to use BJT transistors. >>> My latest amplifier has 50 of them. OK, it's a 10kV >>> amplifier, but still, gotta keep drawings readable. >> >> What? >> >> But?! >> >> You're _literally_ half a century late! >> >> Every person on Earth has a supercomputer, in their pocket, that is able >> to solve this problem! You make the symbol once, and copy-and-paste it >> wherever you need it! >> >> I mean, there is absolutely, positively no work lost, using electronic >> formats, with symbols as complicated, as baroque, as you can dream of. >> >> Printers are 100% vector to raster, thanks again to computers. No time >> lost there. >> >> If you need to take the shortcut just when diagramming something by >> hand, alright, but leaving that in? Deceptive AND lazy, my god... :-( > > Tim, > > A drawing short-cut is also a visual one. > I personally quite like the simplified symbols. > They're easy on the eye. They don't reflect reality, > but neither does any other symbol, in any alphabet. > > That's why they're called "symbols". BS. Alphabetic glyphs are more or less unrelated to the sounds they represent, but a (non-alphabetic) symbol is not a random one-to-one correspondence. The two things have to have something obvious in common for one to symbolize another. Darkness symbolizing ignorance, for instance, or as Freud said, cigars sometimes being just cigars. ;) Cheers Phil Hobbs (Who much prefers the old symbols but isn't fussy about the dashed channel line for enhancement FETs.) Cheers Phil Hobbs -- Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal Consultant ElectroOptical Innovations LLC Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics 160 North State Road #203 Briarcliff Manor NY 10510 hobbs at electrooptical dot net http://electrooptical.net
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-24 08:48 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <K%2VA.88329$bl5.69472@fx25.iad> |
| In reply to | #461369 |
On 24/05/17 02:00, Phil Hobbs wrote: > On 05/23/2017 12:07 AM, Clifford Heath wrote: >> On 23/05/17 12:23, Tim Williams wrote: >>> "Winfield Hill" <hill@rowland.harvard.edu> wrote in message >>> news:ofufrp02mta@drn.newsguy.com... >>>> Yes, exactly, but to my taste, there are too damn many >>>> lines for everyday use, now that we're using MOSFETs >>>> by the barrel, like we used to use BJT transistors. >>>> My latest amplifier has 50 of them. OK, it's a 10kV >>>> amplifier, but still, gotta keep drawings readable. >>> >>> What? >>> >>> But?! >>> >>> You're _literally_ half a century late! >>> >>> Every person on Earth has a supercomputer, in their pocket, that is able >>> to solve this problem! You make the symbol once, and copy-and-paste it >>> wherever you need it! >>> >>> I mean, there is absolutely, positively no work lost, using electronic >>> formats, with symbols as complicated, as baroque, as you can dream of. >>> >>> Printers are 100% vector to raster, thanks again to computers. No time >>> lost there. >>> >>> If you need to take the shortcut just when diagramming something by >>> hand, alright, but leaving that in? Deceptive AND lazy, my god... :-( >> >> Tim, >> >> A drawing short-cut is also a visual one. >> I personally quite like the simplified symbols. >> They're easy on the eye. They don't reflect reality, >> but neither does any other symbol, in any alphabet. >> >> That's why they're called "symbols". > > BS. Alphabetic glyphs are more or less unrelated to the sounds they > represent, but a (non-alphabetic) symbol is not a random one-to-one > correspondence. The two things have to have something obvious in common > for one to symbolize another Perhaps I should have said, there's only a weak correspondence between reality and the structure of the symbol, a hieroglyph with the function of a mnemonic. You couldn't use a cave painting as instructions to build a bison. There's no good reason why a mosfet symbol needs to reflect the physical structure. CAD tools can do anything, as Tim points out, but sometimes it's nice to white-board stuff too. Clifford Heath
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pcdhobbs@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-23 16:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a25732e6-9833-4c13-abed-f4556f1a4160@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #461451 |
>There's no good reason why a mosfet symbol needs to reflect the >physical structure. When everything is going as planned--current coming in via NMOS drains and going out by PMOS drains or NMOS source resistors--it's all happy-clappy and general goodness. Alas that's not always the case, and the exceptions are _expensive_. I find the old symbols much better for spotting bugs. It's useful to be reminded of the body diode when looking for lock-up states and supply sequence vulnerabilities, for instance. Cheers Phil Hobbs
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-27 17:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d0a99d43-2f87-41b0-8ce2-fcb5b25034a2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #461318 |
On Monday, May 22, 2017 at 9:07:57 PM UTC-7, Clifford Heath wrote: > On 23/05/17 12:23, Tim Williams wrote: > > I mean, there is absolutely, positively no work lost, using electronic > > formats, with symbols as complicated, as baroque, as you can dream of. > A drawing short-cut is also a visual one. > I personally quite like the simplified symbols. > They're easy on the eye. They don't reflect reality, > but neither does any other symbol, in any alphabet. That's SO untrue. There are entire written languages based on pictographs (basically, all text is in rebus form), depicting objects whose names sound like the word or name being expressed. The symbol for a diode is a pictograph of a point-contact rectifier (a cat's-whisker). The symbol for a resistor is a long piece of wire, as though wrapped around a card. The symbol for a capacitor, inductor, vacuum tube, transformer... we use pictorials, for better or for worse, a LOT. What I'd really like to see, is a good symbol for a Hall effect sensor. The one for thermocouple is really a nuisance, it looks too much like just a joint in a wire. Which it IS, but it's a SPECIAL joint, and the wire types matter, and they ARE NOT IDENTIFIED in that silly symbol. So, how can I get the polarity right?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-27 17:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <jt7kictspnjal4k0h5ceu00p6t1vtpsmeg@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #462025 |
On Sat, 27 May 2017 17:22:11 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote: >On Monday, May 22, 2017 at 9:07:57 PM UTC-7, Clifford Heath wrote: >> On 23/05/17 12:23, Tim Williams wrote: > >> > I mean, there is absolutely, positively no work lost, using electronic >> > formats, with symbols as complicated, as baroque, as you can dream of. > >> A drawing short-cut is also a visual one. >> I personally quite like the simplified symbols. >> They're easy on the eye. They don't reflect reality, >> but neither does any other symbol, in any alphabet. > >That's SO untrue. There are entire written languages based on >pictographs (basically, all text is in rebus form), depicting objects >whose names sound like the word or name being expressed. > >The symbol for a diode is a pictograph of a point-contact rectifier (a cat's-whisker). >The symbol for a resistor is a long piece of wire, as though wrapped around a card. >The symbol for a capacitor, inductor, vacuum tube, transformer... we use >pictorials, for better or for worse, a LOT. > >What I'd really like to see, is a good symbol for a Hall effect sensor. >The one for thermocouple is really a nuisance, it looks too much like >just a joint in a wire. Which it IS, but it's a SPECIAL joint, and the wire >types matter, and they ARE NOT IDENTIFIED in that silly symbol. So, how >can I get the polarity right? You'd have to use a character-based language. TYPE K + - -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com http://www.highlandtechnology.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-28 11:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <45e3f462-fc1c-4011-8bc3-fcef6f5adf3f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #462029 |
On Saturday, May 27, 2017 at 5:56:04 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote: > On Sat, 27 May 2017 17:22:11 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> > wrote: [about symbols] > >The one for thermocouple is really a nuisance, it looks too much like > >just a joint in a wire. Which it IS, but it's a SPECIAL joint, and the wire > >types matter, and they ARE NOT IDENTIFIED in that silly symbol. So, how > >can I get the polarity right? > > You'd have to use a character-based language. > > TYPE K > > + > > - Unhelpful, of course. The actual parts are chromel and constantan, or the pair markings are yellow and red, not marked with any text symbols. There's not a K or a + or - anywhere to be seen, until the wire has to get connected to the plug. With spools of wire, and a diagram, I'd like to know what to connect where. There's too much reliance on conventions and little bits of information not expressed clearly on the schematic nor in the wire-spool label. Anyone who needs this info, presumably puts it on a post-it and gets the work done, but that post-it wouldn't be required if the schematic symbol actually depicted the reality... somehow.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-28 12:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fq9mic1dasvnvbl94vs3u7atijo1k2ae86@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #462098 |
On Sun, 28 May 2017 11:48:22 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote: >On Saturday, May 27, 2017 at 5:56:04 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote: >> On Sat, 27 May 2017 17:22:11 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> >> wrote: > > >[about symbols] > >> >The one for thermocouple is really a nuisance, it looks too much like >> >just a joint in a wire. Which it IS, but it's a SPECIAL joint, and the wire >> >types matter, and they ARE NOT IDENTIFIED in that silly symbol. So, how >> >can I get the polarity right? >> >> You'd have to use a character-based language. >> >> TYPE K >> >> + >> >> - > >Unhelpful, of course. The actual parts are chromel and constantan, or the pair >markings are yellow and red, not marked with any text symbols. There's not >a K or a + or - anywhere to be seen, until the wire has to get >connected to the plug. > >With spools of wire, and a diagram, I'd like to know what to connect where. >There's too much reliance on conventions and little bits of information not >expressed clearly on the schematic nor in the wire-spool label. Anyone who >needs this info, presumably puts it on a post-it and gets the work done, >but that post-it wouldn't be required if the schematic symbol actually >depicted the reality... somehow. > Add text notes to the schematic if that is helpful. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com http://www.highlandtechnology.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-28 16:02 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <deuWA.45333$8c1.7528@fx19.iad> |
| In reply to | #462025 |
On 28/05/17 10:22, whit3rd wrote: > On Monday, May 22, 2017 at 9:07:57 PM UTC-7, Clifford Heath wrote: >> On 23/05/17 12:23, Tim Williams wrote: > >>> I mean, there is absolutely, positively no work lost, using electronic >>> formats, with symbols as complicated, as baroque, as you can dream of. > >> A drawing short-cut is also a visual one. >> I personally quite like the simplified symbols. >> They're easy on the eye. They don't reflect reality, >> but neither does any other symbol, in any alphabet. > > That's SO untrue. There are entire written languages based on > pictographs We have different definitions of "reflect reality". Obviously there are similarities, and schematic attempts at representations, but they're still just symbols, mnemonics.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-28 07:46 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ogegjv$qv6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #462025 |
"whit3rd" <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote in message news:d0a99d43-2f87-41b0-8ce2-fcb5b25034a2@googlegroups.com... > What I'd really like to see, is a good symbol for a Hall effect sensor. > The one for thermocouple is really a nuisance, it looks too much like > just a joint in a wire. Which it IS, but it's a SPECIAL joint, and the > wire > types matter, and they ARE NOT IDENTIFIED in that silly symbol. So, how > can I get the polarity right? Thermocouple could have the wires in different colors. Or for B&W, one outlined and the other solid. Which one is which would inevitably have to be labeled, since it comes down to metal type. Convention could be one is positive (when the temperature difference is positive), much like the Brit electrolytic symbol (one electrode hollow to show polarity). Which, come to think of it, is a pretty good way to show polarity of an aluminum electrolytic, because the anodized surface is hollow -- porous. :) Hall effect is usually drawn as an isometric rectangle, with connections to the sides. It is what it is, and you can indeed measure the Hall effect in any conductive material connected this way; but the special part, that the material has low charge carrier density (a semiconductor), is the kicker that makes it usefully sensitive. How you want to indicate that, is up to you. *shrug* :) Tim -- Seven Transistor Labs, LLC Electrical Engineering Consultation and Contract Design Website: http://seventransistorlabs.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-28 11:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3ac736cf-cca1-4ddd-9690-6e93dfedc01e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #462057 |
On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 5:46:11 AM UTC-7, Tim Williams wrote: > "whit3rd" <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:d0a99d43-2f87-41b0-8ce2-fcb5b25034a2@googlegroups.com... > > What I'd really like to see, is a good symbol for a Hall effect sensor. > Hall effect is usually drawn as an isometric rectangle, with connections to > the sides. It is what it is, and you can indeed measure the Hall effect in > any conductive material connected this way; but the special part, that the > material has low charge carrier density (a semiconductor), is the kicker > that makes it usefully sensitive. The other kicker, is that the output polarity and nominal B field orientation are related; the three-dimensional nature that connects a field with the output means an awkward polarity confusion.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-28 12:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ds9michdn95f7qehhm23ufo1kujn1m6vva@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #462057 |
On Sun, 28 May 2017 07:46:05 -0500, "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> wrote: >"whit3rd" <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote in message >news:d0a99d43-2f87-41b0-8ce2-fcb5b25034a2@googlegroups.com... >> What I'd really like to see, is a good symbol for a Hall effect sensor. >> The one for thermocouple is really a nuisance, it looks too much like >> just a joint in a wire. Which it IS, but it's a SPECIAL joint, and the >> wire >> types matter, and they ARE NOT IDENTIFIED in that silly symbol. So, how >> can I get the polarity right? > >Thermocouple could have the wires in different colors. Or for B&W, one >outlined and the other solid. Thermocouple wire colors are standardized. Many times. There is the USA standard, and there are many others. Red is + on one side of the Atlantic, minus on the other. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com http://www.highlandtechnology.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-22 21:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ced7ic5ns3ibkiq85nvij4s8n0t7u4uahs@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #461314 |
On Mon, 22 May 2017 21:23:04 -0500, "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> wrote: >"Winfield Hill" <hill@rowland.harvard.edu> wrote in message >news:ofufrp02mta@drn.newsguy.com... >> Yes, exactly, but to my taste, there are too damn many >> lines for everyday use, now that we're using MOSFETs >> by the barrel, like we used to use BJT transistors. >> My latest amplifier has 50 of them. OK, it's a 10kV >> amplifier, but still, gotta keep drawings readable. > >What? > >But?! > >You're _literally_ half a century late! > >Every person on Earth has a supercomputer, in their pocket, that is able to >solve this problem! You make the symbol once, and copy-and-paste it >wherever you need it! > >I mean, there is absolutely, positively no work lost, using electronic >formats, with symbols as complicated, as baroque, as you can dream of. > >Printers are 100% vector to raster, thanks again to computers. No time lost >there. > >If you need to take the shortcut just when diagramming something by hand, >alright, but leaving that in? Deceptive AND lazy, my god... :-( > >Tim Don't be a symbol nazi. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/53724080/Circuits/Current_Sources/Isrc_cascode_Ib.JPG https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/53724080/Circuits/Mirror2.JPG The Win-style symbol is clean and intuitive; you can feel the current flow. The fussy one has resolution problems even with CAD schematics. And it's ugly. I bet you wouldn't like the way I draw schottky diodes, either. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc lunatic fringe electronics
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-23 03:36 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <og0s4g$b0j$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #461321 |
"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote in message news:ced7ic5ns3ibkiq85nvij4s8n0t7u4uahs@4ax.com... > Don't be a symbol nazi. > I'll be whatever I want. This is my gripe thread, get your own. ;-) I don't see any rational argument against my rational argument, so I'm taking that to mean that I've won, and sufficiently embarassed everyone* away from submitting their opinions. *Not excluding myself, y'see, for I know how internet arguments go. :^) > The Win-style symbol is clean and intuitive; you can feel the current > flow. The fussy one has resolution problems even with CAD schematics. > And it's ugly. 1. Not intuitive. It's meaningless! What does the arrow mean? Diode? So it's shorting out the supply? That's precisely the mistake my OP example made. How is that intuitive? 2. You're really grasping at straws with this one. CAD workstations have had sufficient resolution since, well, ever, as far as I know. More than predating myself, let alone my career! Even a crummy 100 DPI bitmap resolves them excellently: https://www.seventransistorlabs.com/Images/Flyback_Snubber_Snippet.png Fits quite nicely there, if I do say so myself. Vector formats have been available for ages (I have Adobe Reader on my Pentium machine, for god's sake). Any argument about finite resolution is fully surpassed: we have _infinite_ resolution to draw with! This also looks fantastic: https://www.seventransistorlabs.com/Images/High%20Voltage%20Bridge.pdf and yes, I did in fact modify the symbol for clarity: I left off the junction dot, which is arguably redundant since it's a three-way junction. Nothing wrong with taking shortcuts, as long as it's not changing the structure. I'm also partial to the inductor symbol that actually looks like a coil instead of a resistor. But that depends on whose library you're looking at; most are passable, but some are almost impossible to tell inductors and resistors apart. > I bet you wouldn't like the way I draw schottky diodes, either. > Don't you just use a triangle with a curly line? Again, what's the meaning? It's supposed to be a "long s", which, like the integral symbol, abbreviates a word that starts with "S". Some use square curls. The square one is probably a relic of shitty CAD and/or lazy library creators. This is a graphical decision, no worse than using a square-shaped font for text (which is less readable, but it doesn't change the text). As seen above, I'm not terribly picky with schottky diodes. A diode is a diode, first of all; if it's a specific kind, that's better. But don't go using a schottky symbol when you pick a zener, or vice versa. Likewise, a MOSFET is a MOSFET, a specific kind of transistor. (There doesn't happen to be any "generic transistor" symbol, unlike with diodes.) It's not a JFET. (Which has square drawn wires and no arrows on the channel side, because that's its structure.) It's not an IGBT. (Which I've drawn before in about that style, but with diagonal C/E wires, because that's its structure.) If you're going to make something simple to draw, that doesn't mean anything, you should draw a square and put "MOS" inside it. I mean, it works for the IEC. Tim -- Seven Transistor Labs, LLC Electrical Engineering Consultation and Contract Design Website: http://seventransistorlabs.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-23 07:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <79h8icdu3ii89cojqr3klqhel7b6ucj84j@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #461329 |
On Tue, 23 May 2017 03:36:43 -0500, "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> wrote: >"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote in message >news:ced7ic5ns3ibkiq85nvij4s8n0t7u4uahs@4ax.com... >> Don't be a symbol nazi. >> > >I'll be whatever I want. This is my gripe thread, get your own. ;-) > >I don't see any rational argument against my rational argument, so I'm >taking that to mean that I've won, and sufficiently embarassed everyone* >away from submitting their opinions. > >*Not excluding myself, y'see, for I know how internet arguments go. :^) > > >> The Win-style symbol is clean and intuitive; you can feel the current >> flow. The fussy one has resolution problems even with CAD schematics. >> And it's ugly. > >1. Not intuitive. It's meaningless! Some people just lack intuition, I guess. > >What does the arrow mean? Diode? So it's shorting out the supply? It's the way the current flows. Like a bipolar. Or a diode. > >That's precisely the mistake my OP example made. How is that intuitive? > >2. You're really grasping at straws with this one. CAD workstations have >had sufficient resolution since, well, ever, as far as I know. More than >predating myself, let alone my career! We print schematics on B sized paper. This may help: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper > >Even a crummy 100 DPI bitmap resolves them excellently: >https://www.seventransistorlabs.com/Images/Flyback_Snubber_Snippet.png >Fits quite nicely there, if I do say so myself. Ooh, ugly. > >Vector formats have been available for ages (I have Adobe Reader on my >Pentium machine, for god's sake). Any argument about finite resolution is >fully surpassed: we have _infinite_ resolution to draw with! > >This also looks fantastic: >https://www.seventransistorlabs.com/Images/High%20Voltage%20Bridge.pdf >and yes, I did in fact modify the symbol for clarity: I left off the >junction dot, which is arguably redundant since it's a three-way junction. > >Nothing wrong with taking shortcuts, as long as it's not changing the >structure. > >I'm also partial to the inductor symbol that actually looks like a coil >instead of a resistor. But that depends on whose library you're looking at; >most are passable, but some are almost impossible to tell inductors and >resistors apart. > > > > >> I bet you wouldn't like the way I draw schottky diodes, either. >> > >Don't you just use a triangle with a curly line? I draw a regular diode with a dot in the middle. That's the hot carrier. > >Again, what's the meaning? It's supposed to be a "long s", which, like the >integral symbol, abbreviates a word that starts with "S". > >Some use square curls. The square one is probably a relic of shitty CAD >and/or lazy library creators. This is a graphical decision, no worse than >using a square-shaped font for text (which is less readable, but it doesn't >change the text). > >As seen above, I'm not terribly picky with schottky diodes. A diode is a >diode, first of all; if it's a specific kind, that's better. But don't go >using a schottky symbol when you pick a zener, or vice versa. > >Likewise, a MOSFET is a MOSFET, a specific kind of transistor. (There >doesn't happen to be any "generic transistor" symbol, unlike with diodes.) > >It's not a JFET. (Which has square drawn wires and no arrows on the channel >side, because that's its structure.) > >It's not an IGBT. (Which I've drawn before in about that style, but with >diagonal C/E wires, because that's its structure.) > >If you're going to make something simple to draw, that doesn't mean >anything, you should draw a square and put "MOS" inside it. > >I mean, it works for the IEC. Do you use their logic symbols? https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/Logic-gate-nor-iec.png -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc lunatic fringe electronics
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@notreal.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-23 20:02 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <t7j9ic94f43ktss47pijoj2gthl4tohceb@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #461352 |
On Tue, 23 May 2017 07:31:03 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote: >On Tue, 23 May 2017 03:36:43 -0500, "Tim Williams" ><tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> wrote: > >>"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote in message >>news:ced7ic5ns3ibkiq85nvij4s8n0t7u4uahs@4ax.com... >>> Don't be a symbol nazi. >>> >> >>I'll be whatever I want. This is my gripe thread, get your own. ;-) >> >>I don't see any rational argument against my rational argument, so I'm >>taking that to mean that I've won, and sufficiently embarassed everyone* >>away from submitting their opinions. >> >>*Not excluding myself, y'see, for I know how internet arguments go. :^) >> >> >>> The Win-style symbol is clean and intuitive; you can feel the current >>> flow. The fussy one has resolution problems even with CAD schematics. >>> And it's ugly. >> >>1. Not intuitive. It's meaningless! > >Some people just lack intuition, I guess. > >> >>What does the arrow mean? Diode? So it's shorting out the supply? > >It's the way the current flows. Like a bipolar. Or a diode. > > >> >>That's precisely the mistake my OP example made. How is that intuitive? >> >>2. You're really grasping at straws with this one. CAD workstations have >>had sufficient resolution since, well, ever, as far as I know. More than >>predating myself, let alone my career! > >We print schematics on B sized paper. This may help: > >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper > > > > >> >>Even a crummy 100 DPI bitmap resolves them excellently: >>https://www.seventransistorlabs.com/Images/Flyback_Snubber_Snippet.png >>Fits quite nicely there, if I do say so myself. > >Ooh, ugly. > > >> >>Vector formats have been available for ages (I have Adobe Reader on my >>Pentium machine, for god's sake). Any argument about finite resolution is >>fully surpassed: we have _infinite_ resolution to draw with! >> >>This also looks fantastic: >>https://www.seventransistorlabs.com/Images/High%20Voltage%20Bridge.pdf >>and yes, I did in fact modify the symbol for clarity: I left off the >>junction dot, which is arguably redundant since it's a three-way junction. >> >>Nothing wrong with taking shortcuts, as long as it's not changing the >>structure. >> >>I'm also partial to the inductor symbol that actually looks like a coil >>instead of a resistor. But that depends on whose library you're looking at; >>most are passable, but some are almost impossible to tell inductors and >>resistors apart. >> >> >> >> >>> I bet you wouldn't like the way I draw schottky diodes, either. >>> >> >>Don't you just use a triangle with a curly line? > >I draw a regular diode with a dot in the middle. That's the hot >carrier. Is it red? FWIW, I like your symbols too. > > >> >>Again, what's the meaning? It's supposed to be a "long s", which, like the >>integral symbol, abbreviates a word that starts with "S". >> >>Some use square curls. The square one is probably a relic of shitty CAD >>and/or lazy library creators. This is a graphical decision, no worse than >>using a square-shaped font for text (which is less readable, but it doesn't >>change the text). >> >>As seen above, I'm not terribly picky with schottky diodes. A diode is a >>diode, first of all; if it's a specific kind, that's better. But don't go >>using a schottky symbol when you pick a zener, or vice versa. >> >>Likewise, a MOSFET is a MOSFET, a specific kind of transistor. (There >>doesn't happen to be any "generic transistor" symbol, unlike with diodes.) >> >>It's not a JFET. (Which has square drawn wires and no arrows on the channel >>side, because that's its structure.) >> >>It's not an IGBT. (Which I've drawn before in about that style, but with >>diagonal C/E wires, because that's its structure.) >> >>If you're going to make something simple to draw, that doesn't mean >>anything, you should draw a square and put "MOS" inside it. >> >>I mean, it works for the IEC. > >Do you use their logic symbols? > >https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/Logic-gate-nor-iec.png That's not so bad, quite like IBM's forty something years ago (when the only printers were chain printers). Try their MSI logic symbols. Yech!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 7 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.electronics.design
csiph-web