On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 18:35:05 -0500, John KD5YI <sophi.2@invalid.org> wrote:>On 4/28/2011 5:59 PM, John Larkin wrote:>> >> -------------o >> /|\ >> / | \ >> / | \ >> | | | >> | | | >> | | | >>> >I used connections similar to this on my schematics to emphasize that >the wires need to be connected at one and only one point, usually to a >ground lug.It is an improper node formation. Both because it is off by one character, AND because it breaks design rules, conventions AND standards. No need for that. They fall on a string, and you place the entire string within a bounding box. You can also create a ground node component to handle it.> The technician building the gear knew exactly what I wanted >and he knew I would inspect for it.Oh boy! You are an inspector too! Any good assembler or technician or whomever one gets to build one's 'gear' would easily interpret a proper drawing just fine. Without the dopey inspector wanna be. It is even easier to show in a block diagram where each wire gets a part number. THEN you can route all of them to the same "GND" "box". That is how large system integrations get done. The components are already built, so they are all represented by a box. Vendor items like downlink converters, uplink converters, and RF Amplifiers, and on the data side, routers and switches, servers, and accelerators, etc. all get boxes that get filled in with component PN, and the rack and slot location they get put in,. So all the wiring gets wire numbers. So the entire drawing of a million dollars worth of "gear" is boxes with lines connecting to them. Those wires have source and destination tags on them, including the ground fault returns from each chassis. They typically get tied to the ground bus bar that runs the length of the rack. THAT IS THE SAME NODE, even if it is not the same stud. Now, INSIDE a chassis is a different story. You DO, in many cases (but by no means all), want all internal ground ties at a singular location. THAT should typically be an Assembly drawing detail, NOT a schematic detail. A schematic is an electrical drawing. You are mixing details from a mechanical assembly drawing and schematic representation. A bounded box DOES denote a singular tie point. That is why they make them. That is what they are for. Your 'method' works, but is not the formal method. The formal method would include a written note about the requisite, And the bounded box method. The "StarTard" method,though able to be interpreted is neither correct nor aesthetic.
Stability of older Orcad/PSpice combos?
Started by ●April 24, 2011
Reply by ●April 29, 20112011-04-29
Reply by ●April 29, 20112011-04-29
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 21:43:15 -0700, The_Giant_Rat_of_Sumatra <GeorgeTirebiter@drmemory.org> wrote:>On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 18:35:05 -0500, John KD5YI <sophi.2@invalid.org> >wrote: > >>On 4/28/2011 5:59 PM, John Larkin wrote: > >>> >>> -------------o >>> /|\ >>> / | \ >>> / | \ >>> | | | >>> | | | >>> | | | >>> > >> >>I used connections similar to this on my schematics to emphasize that >>the wires need to be connected at one and only one point, usually to a >>ground lug. > > It is an improper node formation.Thanks for the opinion, but I actually asked John Fields how he felt about the two examples I posted. No answer. John
Reply by ●April 29, 20112011-04-29
On 4/28/2011 11:43 PM, The_Giant_Rat_of_Sumatra wrote:> On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 18:35:05 -0500, John KD5YI<sophi.2@invalid.org> > wrote: > >> On 4/28/2011 5:59 PM, John Larkin wrote: > >>> >>> -------------o >>> /|\ >>> / | \ >>> / | \ >>> | | | >>> | | | >>> | | | >>> > >> >> I used connections similar to this on my schematics to emphasize that >> the wires need to be connected at one and only one point, usually to a >> ground lug. > > It is an improper node formation. > > Both because it is off by one character, AND because it breaks design > rules, conventions AND standards. > > No need for that. They fall on a string, and you place the entire > string within a bounding box. You can also create a ground node > component to handle it. > >> The technician building the gear knew exactly what I wanted >> and he knew I would inspect for it. > > Oh boy! You are an inspector too! > > Any good assembler or technician or whomever one gets to build one's > 'gear' would easily interpret a proper drawing just fine. Without the > dopey inspector wanna be. > > It is even easier to show in a block diagram where each wire gets a > part number. THEN you can route all of them to the same "GND" "box". > > That is how large system integrations get done. The components are > already built, so they are all represented by a box. Vendor items like > downlink converters, uplink converters, and RF Amplifiers, and on the > data side, routers and switches, servers, and accelerators, etc. all get > boxes that get filled in with component PN, and the rack and slot > location they get put in,. So all the wiring gets wire numbers. > > So the entire drawing of a million dollars worth of "gear" is boxes > with lines connecting to them. Those wires have source and destination > tags on them, including the ground fault returns from each chassis. They > typically get tied to the ground bus bar that runs the length of the > rack. THAT IS THE SAME NODE, even if it is not the same stud. > > Now, INSIDE a chassis is a different story. You DO, in many cases (but > by no means all), want all internal ground ties at a singular location. > > THAT should typically be an Assembly drawing detail, NOT a schematic > detail. A schematic is an electrical drawing. You are mixing details > from a mechanical assembly drawing and schematic representation. > > A bounded box DOES denote a singular tie point. That is why they make > them. That is what they are for. > > Your 'method' works, but is not the formal method. The formal method > would include a written note about the requisite, And the bounded box > method. > > The "StarTard" method,though able to be interpreted is neither correct > nor aesthetic.Said the Rat_Bastard who knows nothing and cannot prove he is even working for a legitimate company.
Reply by ●April 29, 20112011-04-29
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 21:51:08 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:>On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 21:43:15 -0700, The_Giant_Rat_of_Sumatra ><GeorgeTirebiter@drmemory.org> wrote: > >>On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 18:35:05 -0500, John KD5YI <sophi.2@invalid.org> >>wrote: >> >>>On 4/28/2011 5:59 PM, John Larkin wrote: >> >>>> >>>> -------------o >>>> /|\ >>>> / | \ >>>> / | \ >>>> | | | >>>> | | | >>>> | | | >>>> >> >>> >>>I used connections similar to this on my schematics to emphasize that >>>the wires need to be connected at one and only one point, usually to a >>>ground lug. >> >> It is an improper node formation. > >Thanks for the opinion, but I actually asked John Fields how he felt >about the two examples I posted. No answer. > >John >I was responding to the other idiot's stupidity, not you, idiot. LEARN TO READ, IDIOT!
Reply by ●April 29, 20112011-04-29
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 20:48:04 -0500, John KD5YI <sophi.2@invalid.org> wrote:>On 4/28/2011 8:01 PM, Jim Thompson wrote: >> On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 17:55:56 -0700, Joerg<invalid@invalid.invalid> >> wrote:>>>> >>> >>> What, you had that turning gray of probe pins happen, too? >> >> No, Remember I don't use Crapture, but can convert my schematics to >> Crapture upon request... without ever opening Crapture ;-) >> > >The word "crapture" has become trite, especially when used three times >in one sentence. > >Please, Jim, tell me you're not developing a feces fetish like your most >recent admirer. > > >> ...Jim ThompsonActually, fucktard, it is you that has mentioned it now six times minimum in the last 24 hrs.
Reply by ●April 29, 20112011-04-29
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 15:59:13 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:>On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 17:13:41 -0500, John Fields ><jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:>>--- >>More than likely, that error was caused by running off-grid, which was >>pilot error due to inexperience with, or contempt for, the tool. > >I absolutely have contempt for a schematic entry program that allows >things that are visually connected to be not really connected.--- The solution for that would have been, instead of running two wires to the same point, to use a single wire from point A to point B, crossing the other wire and then, once it was run, to place the dot on the cross. Clearly, your desire to have the tools compensate for your incompetence is what led you astray. --->And for >tools that crash, and crash more if you enable auto-backup. PADS does >neither.--- I've been using OrCAD (for DOS) for years and years and it gives me no trouble. YMMV. --->>Running on-grid guaranteed snaps at 0.1" intervals, while they were at >>0.01" intervals running off-grid and OrCAD was fussy about not >>connecting lines that didn't meet. >>--- >> >>>PADS just doesn't allow unconnected wire ends. Maybe all the >>>connection-dot whiners here still are using Orcad. Or diazo machines. >>> >>>John >> >>--- >>I know one who still is, even though he denounces technical >>anachronisms, yet practices them since he owned up to owning (and >>operating) a diazo machine, a Berol pencil, and drafting vellum. >> >>Since he doesn't draw with ink, I'm sure there's also an erasing >>machine and eraser strips in there, somewhere. >> >>Interesting dichotomy, yes? >> > >I do what I enjoy, not what anybody tells me to do. I like to draw, so >I do it. Sue me.--- I get the feeling that your pugnacious nature would cause you to stop doing something you liked to do just because someone told you to do it. --->Old office: > >ftp://jjlarkin.lmi.net/Auto.jpg > >New, office, with lighthouse: > >ftp://jjlarkin.lmi.net/RainyDay.jpg > >Two lighthouses, actually.--- How quaint. --->How do you feel about upside-down grounds? > > > - > --- > ----- > | > | > | > | >--- That's just hideous. --->Or a connection that looks like > > >------------o > /|\ > / | \ > / | \ > | | | > | | | > | | | > > >?--- If there's a good reason for it, then I can't see why there's be any objection to it. -- JF
Reply by ●April 29, 20112011-04-29
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 18:18:41 -0700, "Joel Koltner" <zapwireDASHgroups@yahoo.com> wrote:>"Joerg" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message >news:91uh7cFuu8U1@mid.individual.net... >> Orcad also seems fussy about replacing parts. Delete one, pick new part, >> move over, click to place ... refuses. Same symbol, no dice. First the >> wires need to be deleted, part placed, then new wires drawn. Probably I >> didn't use some magic trick but man, that's the opposite of intuitive. > >Check that you have Options->Preferences->Miscellaneous->Wire Drag->Allow >Component Move With Connectivity Changes checked? (It isn't checked after a >default installation.) > >Also, in case you aren't aware of this... if you Alt-drag a part, it'll >purposely *not* drag its wires along with it. (...and Ctrl+dragging a part >duplicates it, as happens in most Windows programs.) > >---Joel--- Block-Drag-Begin-End will drag the wires along with the part. -- JF
Reply by ●April 29, 20112011-04-29
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 21:51:08 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:>On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 21:43:15 -0700, The_Giant_Rat_of_Sumatra ><GeorgeTirebiter@drmemory.org> wrote: > >>On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 18:35:05 -0500, John KD5YI <sophi.2@invalid.org> >>wrote: >> >>>On 4/28/2011 5:59 PM, John Larkin wrote: >> >>>> >>>> -------------o >>>> /|\ >>>> / | \ >>>> / | \ >>>> | | | >>>> | | | >>>> | | | >>>> >> >>> >>>I used connections similar to this on my schematics to emphasize that >>>the wires need to be connected at one and only one point, usually to a >>>ground lug. >> >> It is an improper node formation. > >Thanks for the opinion, but I actually asked John Fields how he felt >about the two examples I posted. No answer. > >John--- Now you're dictating what's timely and what isn't? You _do_ have a problem! -- JF
Reply by ●April 29, 20112011-04-29
On Fri, 29 Apr 2011 05:29:49 -0500, John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:>On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 21:51:08 -0700, John Larkin ><jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 21:43:15 -0700, The_Giant_Rat_of_Sumatra >><GeorgeTirebiter@drmemory.org> wrote: >> >>>On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 18:35:05 -0500, John KD5YI <sophi.2@invalid.org> >>>wrote: >>> >>>>On 4/28/2011 5:59 PM, John Larkin wrote: >>> >>>>> >>>>> -------------o >>>>> /|\ >>>>> / | \ >>>>> / | \ >>>>> | | | >>>>> | | | >>>>> | | | >>>>> >>> >>>> >>>>I used connections similar to this on my schematics to emphasize that >>>>the wires need to be connected at one and only one point, usually to a >>>>ground lug. >>> >>> It is an improper node formation. >> >>Thanks for the opinion, but I actually asked John Fields how he felt >>about the two examples I posted. No answer. >> >>John > >--- >Now you're dictating what's timely and what isn't? > >You _do_ have a problem!Well, you did disappear from the conversation. I was afraid you'd had a stroke or something, fell and couldn't get up. John
Reply by ●April 29, 20112011-04-29
On Fri, 29 Apr 2011 04:34:42 -0500, John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:>On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 15:59:13 -0700, John Larkin ><jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 17:13:41 -0500, John Fields >><jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote: > > >>>--- >>>More than likely, that error was caused by running off-grid, which was >>>pilot error due to inexperience with, or contempt for, the tool. >> >>I absolutely have contempt for a schematic entry program that allows >>things that are visually connected to be not really connected. > >--- >The solution for that would have been, instead of running two wires to >the same point, to use a single wire from point A to point B, crossing >the other wire and then, once it was run, to place the dot on the >cross. > >Clearly, your desire to have the tools compensate for your >incompetence is what led you astray. >--- > >>And for >>tools that crash, and crash more if you enable auto-backup. PADS does >>neither. > >--- >I've been using OrCAD (for DOS) for years and years and it gives me no >trouble. > >YMMV. >--- > >>>Running on-grid guaranteed snaps at 0.1" intervals, while they were at >>>0.01" intervals running off-grid and OrCAD was fussy about not >>>connecting lines that didn't meet. >>>--- >>> >>>>PADS just doesn't allow unconnected wire ends. Maybe all the >>>>connection-dot whiners here still are using Orcad. Or diazo machines. >>>> >>>>John >>> >>>--- >>>I know one who still is, even though he denounces technical >>>anachronisms, yet practices them since he owned up to owning (and >>>operating) a diazo machine, a Berol pencil, and drafting vellum. >>> >>>Since he doesn't draw with ink, I'm sure there's also an erasing >>>machine and eraser strips in there, somewhere. >>> >>>Interesting dichotomy, yes? >>> >> >>I do what I enjoy, not what anybody tells me to do. I like to draw, so >>I do it. Sue me. > >--- >I get the feeling that your pugnacious nature would cause you to stop >doing something you liked to do just because someone told you to do >it. >--- > >>Old office: >> >>ftp://jjlarkin.lmi.net/Auto.jpg >> >>New, office, with lighthouse: >> >>ftp://jjlarkin.lmi.net/RainyDay.jpg >> >>Two lighthouses, actually. > >--- >How quaint.Yeah, there's all sorts of weird architecture around here. Victorian, deco, moderne, industrial, moorish, masonic, modern hideous. City Hall is a few blocks away, and its exterior style is sort of a cross between Grecian bordello and homeless encampment. Twitter is moving in a couple blocks away, into what looks like a 1950s department store, which it was. There goes the neighborhood.>--- > >>How do you feel about upside-down grounds? >> >> >> - >> --- >> ----- >> | >> | >> | >> | >> >--- >That's just hideous.Tektronix schematic. I have some Tek schematics that do 4-way single-dot connections, too. Your pal JT does 4-ways, too. John
