• LT Spice looks

    From john larkin@21:1/5 to All on Tue Nov 12 16:30:44 2024
    Have you noticed that an LT Spice schematic looks different if you
    open it on different computers? The fonts seem to change.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From legg@21:1/5 to All on Wed Nov 13 08:17:31 2024
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin@21:1/5 to legg on Wed Nov 13 07:31:52 2024
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin@21:1/5 to invalid@invalid.invalid on Wed Nov 13 08:51:23 2024
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Edward Rawde@21:1/5 to john larkin on Wed Nov 13 11:26:30 2024
    "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?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Edward Rawde@21:1/5 to john larkin on Wed Nov 13 12:02:36 2024
    "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.





    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin@21:1/5 to invalid@invalid.invalid on Wed Nov 13 10:31:10 2024
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Edward Rawde@21:1/5 to john larkin on Wed Nov 13 14:09:14 2024
    "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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Cursitor Doom@21:1/5 to All on Wed Nov 13 19:05:54 2024
    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.

    Yes. I had this problem the other day with that oscillator Edward
    posted.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin@21:1/5 to invalid@invalid.invalid on Wed Nov 13 13:56:43 2024
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Edward Rawde@21:1/5 to john larkin on Wed Nov 13 17:20:20 2024
    "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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin@21:1/5 to invalid@invalid.invalid on Wed Nov 13 16:09:56 2024
    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.


    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.

    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin@21:1/5 to invalid@invalid.invalid on Wed Nov 13 19:00:39 2024
    On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 21:18:49 -0500, "Edward Rawde"
    <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    "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.


    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.

    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.


    We just write the title, peoples names, and the date and shoot a pic
    with a cell phone.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Edward Rawde@21:1/5 to john larkin on Wed Nov 13 21:18:49 2024
    "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.


    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.

    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.






    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.


    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Liz Tuddenham@21:1/5 to Edward Rawde on Thu Nov 14 08:54:02 2024
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jan Panteltje@21:1/5 to Liz Tuddenham on Thu Nov 14 09:58:43 2024
    On a sunny day (Thu, 14 Nov 2024 08:54:02 +0000) it happened liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) wrote in <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

    B

    The circuit B is drawn by somebody who actuelly understood the circuit,
    and that way converts how it works, not just connections made between parts.
    It is not a;ways that easy though:
    http://www.poppyrecords.co.uk/other/CircuitDiagrams.gif

    B

    The circuit B is drawn by somebody who actuelly understood the circuit,
    and that way converts how it works, not just connections made between parts.
    It is not always that easy though:
    https://panteltje.nl/pub/telemetry_hud_circuit_diagram_IMG_4018.GIF
    https://panteltje.nl/pub/HUD_board_in_RS232_test_IMG_4024.GIF
    Basically a head-up display with flight data in text form for my drone
    Several technologies combined.


    Spice? You must be kidding...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin@21:1/5 to Liz Tuddenham on Thu Nov 14 07:10:26 2024
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Liz Tuddenham@21:1/5 to john larkin on Thu Nov 14 15:30:32 2024
    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?


    --
    ~ Liz Tuddenham ~
    (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
    www.poppyrecords.co.uk

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Edward Rawde@21:1/5 to Liz Tuddenham on Thu Nov 14 10:38:12 2024
    "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 ~
    (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
    www.poppyrecords.co.uk

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin@21:1/5 to Liz Tuddenham on Thu Nov 14 07:39:27 2024
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Liz Tuddenham@21:1/5 to john larkin on Thu Nov 14 17:01:08 2024
    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.


    --
    ~ Liz Tuddenham ~
    (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
    www.poppyrecords.co.uk

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Liz Tuddenham@21:1/5 to Edward Rawde on Thu Nov 14 17:01:08 2024
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Liz Tuddenham@21:1/5 to Edward Rawde on Thu Nov 14 17:40:12 2024
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Edward Rawde@21:1/5 to Liz Tuddenham on Thu Nov 14 12:21:45 2024
    "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.


    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Edward Rawde@21:1/5 to Liz Tuddenham on Thu Nov 14 13:04:02 2024
    "Liz Tuddenham" <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote in message news:1r30wod.ghq70f1dxlmvrN%liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid...
    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.

    That's fine if you can do it.
    Most people aren't good at tidying up afterwards which is why software is full of memory leaks.
    It's not possible to do much about human nature.
    My collection of https://www.amazon.com/RADIO-TELEVISION-SERVICING-1968-69-MODELS/dp/B0011WHZYA contains all possible examples of circuit diagram style but it has been gathering dust for at least 40 years by now.



    --
    ~ Liz Tuddenham ~
    (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
    www.poppyrecords.co.uk

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin@21:1/5 to Liz Tuddenham on Thu Nov 14 18:36:28 2024
    On Thu, 14 Nov 2024 17:01:08 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
    (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:

    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.

    Usually the long side is positive.


    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.

    Reverse betas are usually in the single digits.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Liz Tuddenham@21:1/5 to john larkin on Fri Nov 15 09:51:19 2024
    john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:

    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.

    I have seen both conventions, so neither is 'usual'. To avoid confusion
    I normally put + and - signs against the battery terminals in my
    diagrams - but I didn't in this case because I thought it would detract
    from the point I was trying to make about the layout. Similarly I
    didn't include component numbers or values.


    --
    ~ Liz Tuddenham ~
    (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
    www.poppyrecords.co.uk

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)