Have you noticed that an LT Spice schematic looks different if you
open it on different computers? The fonts seem to change.
On Tue, 12 Nov 2024 16:30:44 -0800, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>
wrote:
Have you noticed that an LT Spice schematic looks different if you
open it on different computers? The fonts seem to change.
Picture is worth a thousand words here.
Different ?
RL
"john larkin" <JL@gct.com> wrote in message news:33h9jjhk0tb3vm31r4fatp265q3dt22mem@4ax.com...
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 08:17:31 -0500, legg <legg@nospam.magma.ca> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Nov 2024 16:30:44 -0800, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> >>>wrote:
Have you noticed that an LT Spice schematic looks different if you
open it on different computers? The fonts seem to change.
Picture is worth a thousand words here.
Different ?
RL
Mostly fonts. Some can come from different settings, but even with the
same settings things are weird.
As one zooms in and out, font scaling does not track graphic scaling.
Try it. The length of strings jumps around. So if you make something
look good at some zoom level, it gets ugly at others, like text
overlapping parts and such.
It's always done that since I've been using it.
And there are different grids for parts and lines and for different
kinds of text. So it's hard to keep stuff aligned.
All that makes it hard to draw a neat schematic.
I've worked in plenty of places where you didn't get to draw your own schematic so you just had to deal with the fact that although
it produced a correct netlist it didn't look anything like what you'd have drawn yourself.
I believe that a beautiful schematic, for simulation or for a real
PCB, works better than an ugly schematic.
I see real horrors posted here, and elsewhere.
If the netlist and PCB layout is correct then why waste time on making the schematic look like you want it, only to be told by
someone else that they would have drawn it completely differently?
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 08:17:31 -0500, legg <legg@nospam.magma.ca> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Nov 2024 16:30:44 -0800, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> >>wrote:
Have you noticed that an LT Spice schematic looks different if you
open it on different computers? The fonts seem to change.
Picture is worth a thousand words here.
Different ?
RL
Mostly fonts. Some can come from different settings, but even with the
same settings things are weird.
As one zooms in and out, font scaling does not track graphic scaling.
Try it. The length of strings jumps around. So if you make something
look good at some zoom level, it gets ugly at others, like text
overlapping parts and such.
And there are different grids for parts and lines and for different
kinds of text. So it's hard to keep stuff aligned.
All that makes it hard to draw a neat schematic.
I believe that a beautiful schematic, for simulation or for a real
PCB, works better than an ugly schematic.
I see real horrors posted here, and elsewhere.
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 11:26:30 -0500, "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"john larkin" <JL@gct.com> wrote in message news:33h9jjhk0tb3vm31r4fatp265q3dt22mem@4ax.com...
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 08:17:31 -0500, legg <legg@nospam.magma.ca> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Nov 2024 16:30:44 -0800, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> >>>>wrote:
Have you noticed that an LT Spice schematic looks different if you >>>>>open it on different computers? The fonts seem to change.
Picture is worth a thousand words here.
Different ?
RL
Mostly fonts. Some can come from different settings, but even with the
same settings things are weird.
As one zooms in and out, font scaling does not track graphic scaling.
Try it. The length of strings jumps around. So if you make something
look good at some zoom level, it gets ugly at others, like text
overlapping parts and such.
It's always done that since I've been using it.
And there are different grids for parts and lines and for different
kinds of text. So it's hard to keep stuff aligned.
All that makes it hard to draw a neat schematic.
I've worked in plenty of places where you didn't get to draw your own schematic so you just had to deal with the fact that
although
it produced a correct netlist it didn't look anything like what you'd have drawn yourself.
I believe that a beautiful schematic, for simulation or for a real
PCB, works better than an ugly schematic.
I see real horrors posted here, and elsewhere.
If the netlist and PCB layout is correct then why waste time on making the schematic look like you want it, only to be told by
someone else that they would have drawn it completely differently?
The time spent making a schematic look good is essentially another
design review, more eyeball time on the problem.
And who dares to order a design engineer to change his schematic?
Well, I do insist that my engineers treat a Spice schematic like a
real document, with proper title block, author, date revision control.
The sloppy software hacking mentality is terrible when applied to
hardware design.
"john larkin" <JL@gct.com> wrote in message news:0ul9jj906v7pungdbs1u82mrqel9lv7tlr@4ax.com...
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 11:26:30 -0500, "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"john larkin" <JL@gct.com> wrote in message news:33h9jjhk0tb3vm31r4fatp265q3dt22mem@4ax.com...
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 08:17:31 -0500, legg <legg@nospam.magma.ca> wrote: >>>>
On Tue, 12 Nov 2024 16:30:44 -0800, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> >>>>>wrote:
Have you noticed that an LT Spice schematic looks different if you >>>>>>open it on different computers? The fonts seem to change.
Picture is worth a thousand words here.
Different ?
RL
Mostly fonts. Some can come from different settings, but even with the >>>> same settings things are weird.
As one zooms in and out, font scaling does not track graphic scaling.
Try it. The length of strings jumps around. So if you make something
look good at some zoom level, it gets ugly at others, like text
overlapping parts and such.
It's always done that since I've been using it.
And there are different grids for parts and lines and for different
kinds of text. So it's hard to keep stuff aligned.
All that makes it hard to draw a neat schematic.
I've worked in plenty of places where you didn't get to draw your own schematic so you just had to deal with the fact that
although
it produced a correct netlist it didn't look anything like what you'd have drawn yourself.
I believe that a beautiful schematic, for simulation or for a real
PCB, works better than an ugly schematic.
I see real horrors posted here, and elsewhere.
If the netlist and PCB layout is correct then why waste time on making the schematic look like you want it, only to be told by
someone else that they would have drawn it completely differently?
The time spent making a schematic look good is essentially another
design review, more eyeball time on the problem.
A good engineer will do that anyway, but it doesn't necessarily mean that the design will look good to someone else.
And who dares to order a design engineer to change his schematic?
LOL some of the managers I've worked for.
And drawing office people who weren't going to let you use your own logic symbols or other symbols.
Well, I do insist that my engineers treat a Spice schematic like a
real document, with proper title block, author, date revision control.
The sloppy software hacking mentality is terrible when applied to
hardware design.
But not long ago you were agreeing with me about trying things out, either in your mind or as an experimental prototype.
Isn't that just like trying things out in software?
One place I worked tried to get to just two PCB iterations before production.
My comment at the time was that software should also be told that they can only compile it twice.
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 12:02:36 -0500, "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"john larkin" <JL@gct.com> wrote in message news:0ul9jj906v7pungdbs1u82mrqel9lv7tlr@4ax.com...
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 11:26:30 -0500, "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"john larkin" <JL@gct.com> wrote in message news:33h9jjhk0tb3vm31r4fatp265q3dt22mem@4ax.com...
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 08:17:31 -0500, legg <legg@nospam.magma.ca> wrote: >>>>>
On Tue, 12 Nov 2024 16:30:44 -0800, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> >>>>>>wrote:
Have you noticed that an LT Spice schematic looks different if you >>>>>>>open it on different computers? The fonts seem to change.
Picture is worth a thousand words here.
Different ?
RL
Mostly fonts. Some can come from different settings, but even with the >>>>> same settings things are weird.
As one zooms in and out, font scaling does not track graphic scaling. >>>>> Try it. The length of strings jumps around. So if you make something >>>>> look good at some zoom level, it gets ugly at others, like text
overlapping parts and such.
It's always done that since I've been using it.
And there are different grids for parts and lines and for different
kinds of text. So it's hard to keep stuff aligned.
All that makes it hard to draw a neat schematic.
I've worked in plenty of places where you didn't get to draw your own schematic so you just had to deal with the fact that
although
it produced a correct netlist it didn't look anything like what you'd have drawn yourself.
I believe that a beautiful schematic, for simulation or for a real
PCB, works better than an ugly schematic.
I see real horrors posted here, and elsewhere.
If the netlist and PCB layout is correct then why waste time on making the schematic look like you want it, only to be told by
someone else that they would have drawn it completely differently?
The time spent making a schematic look good is essentially another
design review, more eyeball time on the problem.
A good engineer will do that anyway, but it doesn't necessarily mean that the design will look good to someone else.
And who dares to order a design engineer to change his schematic?
LOL some of the managers I've worked for.
And drawing office people who weren't going to let you use your own logic symbols or other symbols.
I remember long ago when we had draftsmen who took sketches and drew schematics on paper, with straight lines. Some of their stuff was ugly
too.
Now, most engineers enter schematics themselves. All the logic symbols
come out of a company-shared library.
I still like to start with a D-size pencil-on-paper schematic, partly
because I don't need to use library parts at the early stage of
design.
Well, I do insist that my engineers treat a Spice schematic like a
real document, with proper title block, author, date revision control.
The sloppy software hacking mentality is terrible when applied to
hardware design.
But not long ago you were agreeing with me about trying things out, either in your mind or as an experimental prototype.
Isn't that just like trying things out in software?
Simulations, sketches, brainstorming, breadboards are quick and easy,
and encourage people to think and change their minds. But
production-quality multilayer PC boards are not the most efficient way
to experiment.
One place I worked tried to get to just two PCB iterations before production.
Our goal is one: sell rev A.
My comment at the time was that software should also be told that they can only compile it twice.
When we worked on paper, with punched tape or cards, we'd actually
READ our code before we assembled and ran. I wrote one RTOS while
visiting a friend in Juneau Alaska and mailed hand-written pages back
to the home office to be punched and assembed and tested. It had one
bug.
Have you noticed that an LT Spice schematic looks different if you
open it on different computers? The fonts seem to change.
"john larkin" <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote in message news:nbr9jj5rkdrs81tgi1iv2ar8p1f9klu084@4ax.com...
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 12:02:36 -0500, "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"john larkin" <JL@gct.com> wrote in message news:0ul9jj906v7pungdbs1u82mrqel9lv7tlr@4ax.com...
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 11:26:30 -0500, "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"john larkin" <JL@gct.com> wrote in message news:33h9jjhk0tb3vm31r4fatp265q3dt22mem@4ax.com...
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 08:17:31 -0500, legg <legg@nospam.magma.ca> wrote: >>>>>>
On Tue, 12 Nov 2024 16:30:44 -0800, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> >>>>>>>wrote:
Have you noticed that an LT Spice schematic looks different if you >>>>>>>>open it on different computers? The fonts seem to change.
Picture is worth a thousand words here.
Different ?
RL
Mostly fonts. Some can come from different settings, but even with the >>>>>> same settings things are weird.
As one zooms in and out, font scaling does not track graphic scaling. >>>>>> Try it. The length of strings jumps around. So if you make something >>>>>> look good at some zoom level, it gets ugly at others, like text
overlapping parts and such.
It's always done that since I've been using it.
And there are different grids for parts and lines and for different >>>>>> kinds of text. So it's hard to keep stuff aligned.
All that makes it hard to draw a neat schematic.
I've worked in plenty of places where you didn't get to draw your own schematic so you just had to deal with the fact that
although
it produced a correct netlist it didn't look anything like what you'd have drawn yourself.
I believe that a beautiful schematic, for simulation or for a real >>>>>> PCB, works better than an ugly schematic.
I see real horrors posted here, and elsewhere.
If the netlist and PCB layout is correct then why waste time on making the schematic look like you want it, only to be told by
someone else that they would have drawn it completely differently?
The time spent making a schematic look good is essentially another
design review, more eyeball time on the problem.
A good engineer will do that anyway, but it doesn't necessarily mean that the design will look good to someone else.
And who dares to order a design engineer to change his schematic?
LOL some of the managers I've worked for.
And drawing office people who weren't going to let you use your own logic symbols or other symbols.
I remember long ago when we had draftsmen who took sketches and drew
schematics on paper, with straight lines. Some of their stuff was ugly
too.
Now, most engineers enter schematics themselves. All the logic symbols
come out of a company-shared library.
I still like to start with a D-size pencil-on-paper schematic, partly
because I don't need to use library parts at the early stage of
design.
I sometimes draw parts of a circuit on paper, usually when I want to calculate something or sketch/brainstorm something, but I
haven't drawn a full schematic on paper directly myself since somewhere around 1988.
Well, I do insist that my engineers treat a Spice schematic like a
real document, with proper title block, author, date revision control. >>>>
The sloppy software hacking mentality is terrible when applied to
hardware design.
But not long ago you were agreeing with me about trying things out, either in your mind or as an experimental prototype.
Isn't that just like trying things out in software?
Simulations, sketches, brainstorming, breadboards are quick and easy,
and encourage people to think and change their minds. But
production-quality multilayer PC boards are not the most efficient way
to experiment.
Ok so the question is when do you switch from Simulations, sketches, brainstorming etc to revision control?
The schematics people post here are not usually under revision control so they don't need "proper title block, author, date revision
control."
I can think of no reason why anyone would get upset about the absence of this information on such a schematic.
One place I worked tried to get to just two PCB iterations before production.
Our goal is one: sell rev A.
My comment at the time was that software should also be told that they can only compile it twice.
When we worked on paper, with punched tape or cards, we'd actually
READ our code before we assembled and ran. I wrote one RTOS while
visiting a friend in Juneau Alaska and mailed hand-written pages back
to the home office to be punched and assembed and tested. It had one
bug.
When I first wrote some code which was going to be run for me, the form I filled in was taken elsewhere and manually transferred to
punch cards which were then fed into the computer which I never saw. The output was returned to me on paper. A transcription error
caused my first program to fail.
It was clear to me at the time that if only I could have my own computer to see the output immediately then I could run, test, run,
test, experiment, run test and eventually arrive at a program I was happy with.
When I actually got a computer which could run my own code I had to put the kit together myself and enter the code bytes myself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MK14
One thing which was immediately apparent was that one little mistake in the code would turn it into a program which randomly rewrote
itself and then you'd have to enter it all again. I got as far as being able to save a program on a reel-reel tape recorder.
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 14:09:14 -0500, "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"john larkin" <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote in message news:nbr9jj5rkdrs81tgi1iv2ar8p1f9klu084@4ax.com...
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 12:02:36 -0500, "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"john larkin" <JL@gct.com> wrote in message news:0ul9jj906v7pungdbs1u82mrqel9lv7tlr@4ax.com...
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 11:26:30 -0500, "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"john larkin" <JL@gct.com> wrote in message news:33h9jjhk0tb3vm31r4fatp265q3dt22mem@4ax.com...
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 08:17:31 -0500, legg <legg@nospam.magma.ca> wrote: >>>>>>>
On Tue, 12 Nov 2024 16:30:44 -0800, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> >>>>>>>>wrote:
Have you noticed that an LT Spice schematic looks different if you >>>>>>>>>open it on different computers? The fonts seem to change.
Picture is worth a thousand words here.
Different ?
RL
Mostly fonts. Some can come from different settings, but even with the >>>>>>> same settings things are weird.
As one zooms in and out, font scaling does not track graphic scaling. >>>>>>> Try it. The length of strings jumps around. So if you make something >>>>>>> look good at some zoom level, it gets ugly at others, like text
overlapping parts and such.
It's always done that since I've been using it.
And there are different grids for parts and lines and for different >>>>>>> kinds of text. So it's hard to keep stuff aligned.
All that makes it hard to draw a neat schematic.
I've worked in plenty of places where you didn't get to draw your own schematic so you just had to deal with the fact that
although
it produced a correct netlist it didn't look anything like what you'd have drawn yourself.
I believe that a beautiful schematic, for simulation or for a real >>>>>>> PCB, works better than an ugly schematic.
I see real horrors posted here, and elsewhere.
If the netlist and PCB layout is correct then why waste time on making the schematic look like you want it, only to be told by
someone else that they would have drawn it completely differently?
The time spent making a schematic look good is essentially another
design review, more eyeball time on the problem.
A good engineer will do that anyway, but it doesn't necessarily mean that the design will look good to someone else.
And who dares to order a design engineer to change his schematic?
LOL some of the managers I've worked for.
And drawing office people who weren't going to let you use your own logic symbols or other symbols.
I remember long ago when we had draftsmen who took sketches and drew
schematics on paper, with straight lines. Some of their stuff was ugly
too.
Now, most engineers enter schematics themselves. All the logic symbols
come out of a company-shared library.
I still like to start with a D-size pencil-on-paper schematic, partly
because I don't need to use library parts at the early stage of
design.
I sometimes draw parts of a circuit on paper, usually when I want to calculate something or sketch/brainstorm something, but I
haven't drawn a full schematic on paper directly myself since somewhere around 1988.
Well, I do insist that my engineers treat a Spice schematic like a
real document, with proper title block, author, date revision control. >>>>>
The sloppy software hacking mentality is terrible when applied to
hardware design.
But not long ago you were agreeing with me about trying things out, either in your mind or as an experimental prototype.
Isn't that just like trying things out in software?
Simulations, sketches, brainstorming, breadboards are quick and easy,
and encourage people to think and change their minds. But
production-quality multilayer PC boards are not the most efficient way
to experiment.
Ok so the question is when do you switch from Simulations, sketches, brainstorming etc to revision control?
The schematics people post here are not usually under revision control so they don't need "proper title block, author, date
revision
control."
I can think of no reason why anyone would get upset about the absence of this information on such a schematic.
It answers the questions What the hell is this? Who did this?
A few years later, it's best to know this stuff.
One place I worked tried to get to just two PCB iterations before production.
Our goal is one: sell rev A.
My comment at the time was that software should also be told that they can only compile it twice.
When we worked on paper, with punched tape or cards, we'd actually
READ our code before we assembled and ran. I wrote one RTOS while
visiting a friend in Juneau Alaska and mailed hand-written pages back
to the home office to be punched and assembed and tested. It had one
bug.
When I first wrote some code which was going to be run for me, the form I filled in was taken elsewhere and manually transferred
to
punch cards which were then fed into the computer which I never saw. The output was returned to me on paper. A transcription error
caused my first program to fail.
It was clear to me at the time that if only I could have my own computer to see the output immediately then I could run, test,
run,
test, experiment, run test and eventually arrive at a program I was happy with.
When I actually got a computer which could run my own code I had to put the kit together myself and enter the code bytes myself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MK14
One thing which was immediately apparent was that one little mistake in the code would turn it into a program which randomly
rewrote
itself and then you'd have to enter it all again. I got as far as being able to save a program on a reel-reel tape recorder.
The easier it is to run something, the less checking will be done, and
the more bugs there will be. Bridges and buildings and airplanes get
checked before they are built so have less bugs than Windows.
"john larkin" <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote in message news:aq7ajj59feghbv9cbdr5ip42ffqlbtl607@4ax.com...
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 14:09:14 -0500, "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"john larkin" <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote in message news:nbr9jj5rkdrs81tgi1iv2ar8p1f9klu084@4ax.com...
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 12:02:36 -0500, "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"john larkin" <JL@gct.com> wrote in message news:0ul9jj906v7pungdbs1u82mrqel9lv7tlr@4ax.com...
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 11:26:30 -0500, "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"john larkin" <JL@gct.com> wrote in message news:33h9jjhk0tb3vm31r4fatp265q3dt22mem@4ax.com...
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 08:17:31 -0500, legg <legg@nospam.magma.ca> wrote: >>>>>>>>
On Tue, 12 Nov 2024 16:30:44 -0800, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> >>>>>>>>>wrote:
Have you noticed that an LT Spice schematic looks different if you >>>>>>>>>>open it on different computers? The fonts seem to change.
Picture is worth a thousand words here.
Different ?
RL
Mostly fonts. Some can come from different settings, but even with the >>>>>>>> same settings things are weird.
As one zooms in and out, font scaling does not track graphic scaling. >>>>>>>> Try it. The length of strings jumps around. So if you make something >>>>>>>> look good at some zoom level, it gets ugly at others, like text >>>>>>>> overlapping parts and such.
It's always done that since I've been using it.
And there are different grids for parts and lines and for different >>>>>>>> kinds of text. So it's hard to keep stuff aligned.
All that makes it hard to draw a neat schematic.
I've worked in plenty of places where you didn't get to draw your own schematic so you just had to deal with the fact that
although
it produced a correct netlist it didn't look anything like what you'd have drawn yourself.
I believe that a beautiful schematic, for simulation or for a real >>>>>>>> PCB, works better than an ugly schematic.
I see real horrors posted here, and elsewhere.
If the netlist and PCB layout is correct then why waste time on making the schematic look like you want it, only to be told by
someone else that they would have drawn it completely differently? >>>>>>>
The time spent making a schematic look good is essentially another >>>>>> design review, more eyeball time on the problem.
A good engineer will do that anyway, but it doesn't necessarily mean that the design will look good to someone else.
And who dares to order a design engineer to change his schematic?
LOL some of the managers I've worked for.
And drawing office people who weren't going to let you use your own logic symbols or other symbols.
I remember long ago when we had draftsmen who took sketches and drew
schematics on paper, with straight lines. Some of their stuff was ugly >>>> too.
Now, most engineers enter schematics themselves. All the logic symbols >>>> come out of a company-shared library.
I still like to start with a D-size pencil-on-paper schematic, partly
because I don't need to use library parts at the early stage of
design.
I sometimes draw parts of a circuit on paper, usually when I want to calculate something or sketch/brainstorm something, but I
haven't drawn a full schematic on paper directly myself since somewhere around 1988.
Well, I do insist that my engineers treat a Spice schematic like a >>>>>> real document, with proper title block, author, date revision control. >>>>>>
The sloppy software hacking mentality is terrible when applied to
hardware design.
But not long ago you were agreeing with me about trying things out, either in your mind or as an experimental prototype.
Isn't that just like trying things out in software?
Simulations, sketches, brainstorming, breadboards are quick and easy,
and encourage people to think and change their minds. But
production-quality multilayer PC boards are not the most efficient way >>>> to experiment.
Ok so the question is when do you switch from Simulations, sketches, brainstorming etc to revision control?
The schematics people post here are not usually under revision control so they don't need "proper title block, author, date
revision
control."
I can think of no reason why anyone would get upset about the absence of this information on such a schematic.
It answers the questions What the hell is this? Who did this?
A few years later, it's best to know this stuff.
Once it's in my filing system it will probably never be seen again.
One place I worked tried to get to just two PCB iterations before production.
Our goal is one: sell rev A.
My comment at the time was that software should also be told that they can only compile it twice.
When we worked on paper, with punched tape or cards, we'd actually
READ our code before we assembled and ran. I wrote one RTOS while
visiting a friend in Juneau Alaska and mailed hand-written pages back
to the home office to be punched and assembed and tested. It had one
bug.
When I first wrote some code which was going to be run for me, the form I filled in was taken elsewhere and manually transferred
to
punch cards which were then fed into the computer which I never saw. The output was returned to me on paper. A transcription error
caused my first program to fail.
It was clear to me at the time that if only I could have my own computer to see the output immediately then I could run, test,
run,
test, experiment, run test and eventually arrive at a program I was happy with.
When I actually got a computer which could run my own code I had to put the kit together myself and enter the code bytes myself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MK14
One thing which was immediately apparent was that one little mistake in the code would turn it into a program which randomly
rewrote
itself and then you'd have to enter it all again. I got as far as being able to save a program on a reel-reel tape recorder.
The easier it is to run something, the less checking will be done, and
the more bugs there will be. Bridges and buildings and airplanes get
checked before they are built so have less bugs than Windows.
You might want to talk to Boeing about that.
Not to mention >https://www.google.com/search?q=florida+university+bridge+collapse
Or
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surfside_condominium_collapse
"john larkin" <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote in message news:15fajjdaci5k28sjc5c93da5p78ji0h8on@4ax.com...
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 17:20:20 -0500, "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"john larkin" <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote in message news:aq7ajj59feghbv9cbdr5ip42ffqlbtl607@4ax.com...
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 14:09:14 -0500, "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"john larkin" <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote in message news:nbr9jj5rkdrs81tgi1iv2ar8p1f9klu084@4ax.com...
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 12:02:36 -0500, "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"john larkin" <JL@gct.com> wrote in message news:0ul9jj906v7pungdbs1u82mrqel9lv7tlr@4ax.com...
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 11:26:30 -0500, "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"john larkin" <JL@gct.com> wrote in message news:33h9jjhk0tb3vm31r4fatp265q3dt22mem@4ax.com...
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 08:17:31 -0500, legg <legg@nospam.magma.ca> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Nov 2024 16:30:44 -0800, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>
wrote:
Have you noticed that an LT Spice schematic looks different if you >>>>>>>>>>>>open it on different computers? The fonts seem to change. >>>>>>>>>>>Picture is worth a thousand words here.
Different ?
RL
Mostly fonts. Some can come from different settings, but even with the
same settings things are weird.
As one zooms in and out, font scaling does not track graphic scaling.
Try it. The length of strings jumps around. So if you make something >>>>>>>>>> look good at some zoom level, it gets ugly at others, like text >>>>>>>>>> overlapping parts and such.
It's always done that since I've been using it.
And there are different grids for parts and lines and for different >>>>>>>>>> kinds of text. So it's hard to keep stuff aligned.
All that makes it hard to draw a neat schematic.
I've worked in plenty of places where you didn't get to draw your own schematic so you just had to deal with the fact that
although
it produced a correct netlist it didn't look anything like what you'd have drawn yourself.
I believe that a beautiful schematic, for simulation or for a real >>>>>>>>>> PCB, works better than an ugly schematic.
I see real horrors posted here, and elsewhere.
If the netlist and PCB layout is correct then why waste time on making the schematic look like you want it, only to be told
by
someone else that they would have drawn it completely differently? >>>>>>>>>
The time spent making a schematic look good is essentially another >>>>>>>> design review, more eyeball time on the problem.
A good engineer will do that anyway, but it doesn't necessarily mean that the design will look good to someone else.
LOL some of the managers I've worked for.
And who dares to order a design engineer to change his schematic? >>>>>>>
And drawing office people who weren't going to let you use your own logic symbols or other symbols.
I remember long ago when we had draftsmen who took sketches and drew >>>>>> schematics on paper, with straight lines. Some of their stuff was ugly >>>>>> too.
Now, most engineers enter schematics themselves. All the logic symbols >>>>>> come out of a company-shared library.
I still like to start with a D-size pencil-on-paper schematic, partly >>>>>> because I don't need to use library parts at the early stage of
design.
I sometimes draw parts of a circuit on paper, usually when I want to calculate something or sketch/brainstorm something, but I
haven't drawn a full schematic on paper directly myself since somewhere around 1988.
Well, I do insist that my engineers treat a Spice schematic like a >>>>>>>> real document, with proper title block, author, date revision control. >>>>>>>>
The sloppy software hacking mentality is terrible when applied to >>>>>>>> hardware design.
But not long ago you were agreeing with me about trying things out, either in your mind or as an experimental prototype.
Isn't that just like trying things out in software?
Simulations, sketches, brainstorming, breadboards are quick and easy, >>>>>> and encourage people to think and change their minds. But
production-quality multilayer PC boards are not the most efficient way >>>>>> to experiment.
Ok so the question is when do you switch from Simulations, sketches, brainstorming etc to revision control?
The schematics people post here are not usually under revision control so they don't need "proper title block, author, date
revision
control."
I can think of no reason why anyone would get upset about the absence of this information on such a schematic.
It answers the questions What the hell is this? Who did this?
A few years later, it's best to know this stuff.
Once it's in my filing system it will probably never be seen again.
Never see the Spice model again? That certainly reduces the
documentation requirements.
Around here, even whiteboard sketches are titled and dated and
photographed and archived in a project folder.
If I worked in whiteboard marketing I'd certainly push that as a must have. >Must be more than 30 years ago when I first saw a whiteboard which could put it all on paper.
I'm not sure what happened to the papers. They were likely filed and...
I'm sure they would have had such a whiteboard here: >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
But the issue there is that the engineer, Anderson, should not have been invited to the meeting at all.
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 17:20:20 -0500, "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"john larkin" <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote in message news:aq7ajj59feghbv9cbdr5ip42ffqlbtl607@4ax.com...
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 14:09:14 -0500, "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"john larkin" <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote in message news:nbr9jj5rkdrs81tgi1iv2ar8p1f9klu084@4ax.com...
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 12:02:36 -0500, "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"john larkin" <JL@gct.com> wrote in message news:0ul9jj906v7pungdbs1u82mrqel9lv7tlr@4ax.com...
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 11:26:30 -0500, "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"john larkin" <JL@gct.com> wrote in message news:33h9jjhk0tb3vm31r4fatp265q3dt22mem@4ax.com...
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 08:17:31 -0500, legg <legg@nospam.magma.ca> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Nov 2024 16:30:44 -0800, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> >>>>>>>>>>wrote:
Have you noticed that an LT Spice schematic looks different if you >>>>>>>>>>>open it on different computers? The fonts seem to change.
Picture is worth a thousand words here.
Different ?
RL
Mostly fonts. Some can come from different settings, but even with the
same settings things are weird.
As one zooms in and out, font scaling does not track graphic scaling. >>>>>>>>> Try it. The length of strings jumps around. So if you make something >>>>>>>>> look good at some zoom level, it gets ugly at others, like text >>>>>>>>> overlapping parts and such.
It's always done that since I've been using it.
And there are different grids for parts and lines and for different >>>>>>>>> kinds of text. So it's hard to keep stuff aligned.
All that makes it hard to draw a neat schematic.
I've worked in plenty of places where you didn't get to draw your own schematic so you just had to deal with the fact that
although
it produced a correct netlist it didn't look anything like what you'd have drawn yourself.
I believe that a beautiful schematic, for simulation or for a real >>>>>>>>> PCB, works better than an ugly schematic.
I see real horrors posted here, and elsewhere.
If the netlist and PCB layout is correct then why waste time on making the schematic look like you want it, only to be told
by
someone else that they would have drawn it completely differently? >>>>>>>>
The time spent making a schematic look good is essentially another >>>>>>> design review, more eyeball time on the problem.
A good engineer will do that anyway, but it doesn't necessarily mean that the design will look good to someone else.
LOL some of the managers I've worked for.
And who dares to order a design engineer to change his schematic? >>>>>>
And drawing office people who weren't going to let you use your own logic symbols or other symbols.
I remember long ago when we had draftsmen who took sketches and drew >>>>> schematics on paper, with straight lines. Some of their stuff was ugly >>>>> too.
Now, most engineers enter schematics themselves. All the logic symbols >>>>> come out of a company-shared library.
I still like to start with a D-size pencil-on-paper schematic, partly >>>>> because I don't need to use library parts at the early stage of
design.
I sometimes draw parts of a circuit on paper, usually when I want to calculate something or sketch/brainstorm something, but I
haven't drawn a full schematic on paper directly myself since somewhere around 1988.
Well, I do insist that my engineers treat a Spice schematic like a >>>>>>> real document, with proper title block, author, date revision control. >>>>>>>
The sloppy software hacking mentality is terrible when applied to >>>>>>> hardware design.
But not long ago you were agreeing with me about trying things out, either in your mind or as an experimental prototype.
Isn't that just like trying things out in software?
Simulations, sketches, brainstorming, breadboards are quick and easy, >>>>> and encourage people to think and change their minds. But
production-quality multilayer PC boards are not the most efficient way >>>>> to experiment.
Ok so the question is when do you switch from Simulations, sketches, brainstorming etc to revision control?
The schematics people post here are not usually under revision control so they don't need "proper title block, author, date
revision
control."
I can think of no reason why anyone would get upset about the absence of this information on such a schematic.
It answers the questions What the hell is this? Who did this?
A few years later, it's best to know this stuff.
Once it's in my filing system it will probably never be seen again.
Never see the Spice model again? That certainly reduces the
documentation requirements.
Around here, even whiteboard sketches are titled and dated and
photographed and archived in a project folder.
One place I worked tried to get to just two PCB iterations before production.
Our goal is one: sell rev A.
My comment at the time was that software should also be told that they can only compile it twice.
When we worked on paper, with punched tape or cards, we'd actually
READ our code before we assembled and ran. I wrote one RTOS while
visiting a friend in Juneau Alaska and mailed hand-written pages back >>>>> to the home office to be punched and assembed and tested. It had one >>>>> bug.
When I first wrote some code which was going to be run for me, the form I filled in was taken elsewhere and manually transferred
to
punch cards which were then fed into the computer which I never saw. The output was returned to me on paper. A transcription
error
caused my first program to fail.
It was clear to me at the time that if only I could have my own computer to see the output immediately then I could run, test,
run,
test, experiment, run test and eventually arrive at a program I was happy with.
When I actually got a computer which could run my own code I had to put the kit together myself and enter the code bytes myself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MK14
One thing which was immediately apparent was that one little mistake in the code would turn it into a program which randomly
rewrote
itself and then you'd have to enter it all again. I got as far as being able to save a program on a reel-reel tape recorder.
The easier it is to run something, the less checking will be done, and
the more bugs there will be. Bridges and buildings and airplanes get
checked before they are built so have less bugs than Windows.
You might want to talk to Boeing about that.
The door plug blowout was a field assembly error. Required parts
weren't installed.
Not to mention >>https://www.google.com/search?q=florida+university+bridge+collapse
Or
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surfside_condominium_collapse
Building collapses usually happen because the construction is not in conformance with the signed-off drawings.
Our drawings define the end product, but usually don't detail every
steps that manufacturing uses to achieve conformance to drawings. QC
does inspect the final assemblies for conformance to all released
documents.
If the netlist and PCB layout is correct then why waste time on making the schematic look like you want it, only to be told by someone else that they would have drawn it completely differently?
Edward Rawde <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
[...]
If the netlist and PCB layout is correct then why waste time on making the >> schematic look like you want it, only to be told by someone else that they >> would have drawn it completely differently?
If you were a service engineer with the customer breathing down your
neck, which diagram would you prefer, 'A' or 'B' ?
http://www.poppyrecords.co.uk/other/CircuitDiagrams.gif
Edward Rawde <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
[...]
If the netlist and PCB layout is correct then why waste time on making the >> schematic look like you want it, only to be told by someone else that they >> would have drawn it completely differently?
If you were a service engineer with the customer breathing down your
neck, which diagram would you prefer, 'A' or 'B' ?
http://www.poppyrecords.co.uk/other/CircuitDiagrams.gif
On Thu, 14 Nov 2024 08:54:02 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Edward Rawde <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
[...]
If the netlist and PCB layout is correct then why waste time on making the >> schematic look like you want it, only to be told by someone else that they >> would have drawn it completely differently?
If you were a service engineer with the customer breathing down your
neck, which diagram would you prefer, 'A' or 'B' ?
http://www.poppyrecords.co.uk/other/CircuitDiagrams.gif
They are both wrong.
Edward Rawde <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
[...]
If the netlist and PCB layout is correct then why waste time on making the >> schematic look like you want it, only to be told by someone else that they >> would have drawn it completely differently?
If you were a service engineer with the customer breathing down your
neck, which diagram would you prefer, 'A' or 'B' ?
http://www.poppyrecords.co.uk/other/CircuitDiagrams.gif
--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk
john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2024 08:54:02 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Edward Rawde <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
[...]
If the netlist and PCB layout is correct then why waste time on making the
schematic look like you want it, only to be told by someone else that they
would have drawn it completely differently?
If you were a service engineer with the customer breathing down your
neck, which diagram would you prefer, 'A' or 'B' ?
http://www.poppyrecords.co.uk/other/CircuitDiagrams.gif
They are both wrong.
Do you mean they wouldn't work or do you mean they aren't drawn to some >arbitrary standard?
On Thu, 14 Nov 2024 15:30:32 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2024 08:54:02 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Edward Rawde <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
[...]
If the netlist and PCB layout is correct then why waste time on
making the schematic look like you want it, only to be told by
someone else that they would have drawn it completely differently?
If you were a service engineer with the customer breathing down your
neck, which diagram would you prefer, 'A' or 'B' ?
http://www.poppyrecords.co.uk/other/CircuitDiagrams.gif
They are both wrong.
Do you mean they wouldn't work or do you mean they aren't drawn to some >arbitrary standard?
Won't work. The batteries are backwards.
"Liz Tuddenham" <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote in message news:1r307zo.v2hb321oo3t6gN%liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid... > Edward Rawde <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote: > > [...]
If the netlist and PCB layout is correct then why waste time on making the >> schematic look like you want it, only to be told by someone else that they >> would have drawn it completely differently?
If you were a service engineer with the customer breathing down your
neck, which diagram would you prefer, 'A' or 'B' ?
http://www.poppyrecords.co.uk/other/CircuitDiagrams.gif
When I was a service engineer there was no such thing as a schematic and I often had to make do without a circuit diagram at all. On rare occasions a repair had to wait for a circuit diagram to arrive by post and when it did
it could easily contain circuit A.
I'm not suggesting that your B layout isn't preferable but in the real
world A will often be encountered.
"Liz Tuddenham" <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote in message news:1r30v1o.1i0ovwuasvnl4N%liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid...
Edward
Rawde <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote: >
"Liz Tuddenham" <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:1r307zo.v2hb321oo3t6gN%liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid... > Edward >> Rawde <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote: > > [...]
If the netlist and PCB layout is correct then why waste time on
making the schematic look like you want it, only to be told by
someone else that they would have drawn it completely differently?
If you were a service engineer with the customer breathing down your
neck, which diagram would you prefer, 'A' or 'B' ?
http://www.poppyrecords.co.uk/other/CircuitDiagrams.gif
When I was a service engineer there was no such thing as a schematic and I >> often had to make do without a circuit diagram at all. On rare occasions a >> repair had to wait for a circuit diagram to arrive by post and when it did >> it could easily contain circuit A.
I'm not suggesting that your B layout isn't preferable but in the real
world A will often be encountered.
I suppose it depends on whether it was drawn by a wireman or by the designer. Small firms often benefit from more direct contact between
the designer and the user or repairer.
Many circuit diagrams I encountered were clearly not drawn by the
designer. Another issue with circuit diagrams from times gone by would be
a line which went nowhere because it joined to a line on another page
which may or may not be easy to find.
Edward Rawde <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"Liz Tuddenham" <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:1r307zo.v2hb321oo3t6gN%liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid... > Edward
Rawde <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote: > > [...]
If the netlist and PCB layout is correct then why waste time on making the
schematic look like you want it, only to be told by someone else that they
would have drawn it completely differently?
If you were a service engineer with the customer breathing down your
neck, which diagram would you prefer, 'A' or 'B' ?
http://www.poppyrecords.co.uk/other/CircuitDiagrams.gif
When I was a service engineer there was no such thing as a schematic and I >> often had to make do without a circuit diagram at all. On rare occasions a >> repair had to wait for a circuit diagram to arrive by post and when it did >> it could easily contain circuit A.
I'm not suggesting that your B layout isn't preferable but in the real
world A will often be encountered.
I suppose it depends on whether it was drawn by a wireman or by the
designer. Small firms often benefit from more direct contact between
the designer and the user or repairer.
The drawing office in one firm I worked for was mainly staffed by radio amateurs and/or radio engineers. Their circuit diagrams and handbooks
were a model of clarity.
--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk
Edward Rawde <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"Liz Tuddenham" <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:1r30v1o.1i0ovwuasvnl4N%liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid...
Edward
Rawde <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote: >
"Liz Tuddenham" <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:1r307zo.v2hb321oo3t6gN%liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid... > Edward >> >> Rawde <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote: > > [...]
If the netlist and PCB layout is correct then why waste time on
making the schematic look like you want it, only to be told by
someone else that they would have drawn it completely differently?
If you were a service engineer with the customer breathing down your
neck, which diagram would you prefer, 'A' or 'B' ?
http://www.poppyrecords.co.uk/other/CircuitDiagrams.gif
When I was a service engineer there was no such thing as a schematic and I
often had to make do without a circuit diagram at all. On rare occasions a
repair had to wait for a circuit diagram to arrive by post and when it did
it could easily contain circuit A.
I'm not suggesting that your B layout isn't preferable but in the real
world A will often be encountered.
I suppose it depends on whether it was drawn by a wireman or by the
designer. Small firms often benefit from more direct contact between
the designer and the user or repairer.
Many circuit diagrams I encountered were clearly not drawn by the
designer. Another issue with circuit diagrams from times gone by would be
a line which went nowhere because it joined to a line on another page
which may or may not be easy to find.
I try to draw my circuits as one big drawing, but if I can't, I try to
make the lines from one section to another appear in the same order down
the page with clear lettering or numbering (and possibly a bracket
around them with a legend to say where they go). I'm usually the person
who will have to make sense of them years later, so I feel I should
leave clear instructions to myself so I can see what I was doing.
--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk
john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2024 15:30:32 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2024 08:54:02 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Edward Rawde <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
[...]
If the netlist and PCB layout is correct then why waste time on
making the schematic look like you want it, only to be told by
someone else that they would have drawn it completely differently?
If you were a service engineer with the customer breathing down your
neck, which diagram would you prefer, 'A' or 'B' ?
http://www.poppyrecords.co.uk/other/CircuitDiagrams.gif
They are both wrong.
Do you mean they wouldn't work or do you mean they aren't drawn to some
arbitrary standard?
Won't work. The batteries are backwards.
It depends which battery convention you use, there doesn't seem to be a >standard which is universally accepted.
As a footnote, some transistors have enough gain int the reverse
direction to make the circuit function, after a fashion, from either >polarity. When I worked as a tester on a production line, we were
puzzled by the audio stages of some of the receivers working below spec. >Everything seemed all right except the high frequency response was below
the test limits. Eventually I tracked it down to one of the transistors >being put in backwards by the girls making the boards.
On Thu, 14 Nov 2024 17:01:08 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:
Won't work. The batteries are backwards.
It depends which battery convention you use, there doesn't seem to be a >standard which is universally accepted.
Usually the long side is positive.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 418 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 02:56:27 |
Calls: | 8,787 |
Calls today: | 14 |
Files: | 13,296 |
Messages: | 5,965,496 |