On Tue, 23 May 2017 00:07:17 -0400, bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote:>On 05/22/2017 11:21 AM, John Larkin wrote: >> On Mon, 22 May 2017 03:02:25 -0500, "Tim Williams" >> <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> wrote: >> >>> Proof in case: >>> >>> http://www.ecnmag.com/sites/ecnmag.com/files/legacyimages/ECN/Articles/CS-1109-Figure_02.jpg >>> >> >> The symbols are fine, except that they got them backwards. >> >> That's the way we draw mosfets, like bipolars with insulated gates. >> >> > >If things had worked out differently it was going to be required by >executive order that all electrical engineers use this to represent N >channel MOSFETS: > ><http://imgur.com/a/4VWRe> > >That's what I heardBut now it's the symbol for a termination. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc lunatic fringe electronics
Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols?
Started by ●May 22, 2017
Reply by ●May 23, 20172017-05-23
Reply by ●May 23, 20172017-05-23
"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote in message news:ced7ic5ns3ibkiq85nvij4s8n0t7u4uahs@4ax.com...> Don't be a symbol nazi. >I'll be whatever I want. This is my gripe thread, get your own. ;-) I don't see any rational argument against my rational argument, so I'm taking that to mean that I've won, and sufficiently embarassed everyone* away from submitting their opinions. *Not excluding myself, y'see, for I know how internet arguments go. :^)> The Win-style symbol is clean and intuitive; you can feel the current > flow. The fussy one has resolution problems even with CAD schematics. > And it's ugly.1. Not intuitive. It's meaningless! What does the arrow mean? Diode? So it's shorting out the supply? That's precisely the mistake my OP example made. How is that intuitive? 2. You're really grasping at straws with this one. CAD workstations have had sufficient resolution since, well, ever, as far as I know. More than predating myself, let alone my career! Even a crummy 100 DPI bitmap resolves them excellently: https://www.seventransistorlabs.com/Images/Flyback_Snubber_Snippet.png Fits quite nicely there, if I do say so myself. Vector formats have been available for ages (I have Adobe Reader on my Pentium machine, for god's sake). Any argument about finite resolution is fully surpassed: we have _infinite_ resolution to draw with! This also looks fantastic: https://www.seventransistorlabs.com/Images/High%20Voltage%20Bridge.pdf and yes, I did in fact modify the symbol for clarity: I left off the junction dot, which is arguably redundant since it's a three-way junction. Nothing wrong with taking shortcuts, as long as it's not changing the structure. I'm also partial to the inductor symbol that actually looks like a coil instead of a resistor. But that depends on whose library you're looking at; most are passable, but some are almost impossible to tell inductors and resistors apart.> I bet you wouldn't like the way I draw schottky diodes, either. >Don't you just use a triangle with a curly line? Again, what's the meaning? It's supposed to be a "long s", which, like the integral symbol, abbreviates a word that starts with "S". Some use square curls. The square one is probably a relic of shitty CAD and/or lazy library creators. This is a graphical decision, no worse than using a square-shaped font for text (which is less readable, but it doesn't change the text). As seen above, I'm not terribly picky with schottky diodes. A diode is a diode, first of all; if it's a specific kind, that's better. But don't go using a schottky symbol when you pick a zener, or vice versa. Likewise, a MOSFET is a MOSFET, a specific kind of transistor. (There doesn't happen to be any "generic transistor" symbol, unlike with diodes.) It's not a JFET. (Which has square drawn wires and no arrows on the channel side, because that's its structure.) It's not an IGBT. (Which I've drawn before in about that style, but with diagonal C/E wires, because that's its structure.) If you're going to make something simple to draw, that doesn't mean anything, you should draw a square and put "MOS" inside it. I mean, it works for the IEC. Tim -- Seven Transistor Labs, LLC Electrical Engineering Consultation and Contract Design Website: http://seventransistorlabs.com
Reply by ●May 23, 20172017-05-23
On Tue, 23 May 2017 03:36:43 -0500, "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> wrote:>"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote in message >news:ced7ic5ns3ibkiq85nvij4s8n0t7u4uahs@4ax.com... >> Don't be a symbol nazi. >> > >I'll be whatever I want. This is my gripe thread, get your own. ;-) > >I don't see any rational argument against my rational argument, so I'm >taking that to mean that I've won, and sufficiently embarassed everyone* >away from submitting their opinions. > >*Not excluding myself, y'see, for I know how internet arguments go. :^) > > >> The Win-style symbol is clean and intuitive; you can feel the current >> flow. The fussy one has resolution problems even with CAD schematics. >> And it's ugly. > >1. Not intuitive. It's meaningless!Some people just lack intuition, I guess.> >What does the arrow mean? Diode? So it's shorting out the supply?It's the way the current flows. Like a bipolar. Or a diode.> >That's precisely the mistake my OP example made. How is that intuitive? > >2. You're really grasping at straws with this one. CAD workstations have >had sufficient resolution since, well, ever, as far as I know. More than >predating myself, let alone my career!We print schematics on B sized paper. This may help: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper> >Even a crummy 100 DPI bitmap resolves them excellently: >https://www.seventransistorlabs.com/Images/Flyback_Snubber_Snippet.png >Fits quite nicely there, if I do say so myself.Ooh, ugly.> >Vector formats have been available for ages (I have Adobe Reader on my >Pentium machine, for god's sake). Any argument about finite resolution is >fully surpassed: we have _infinite_ resolution to draw with! > >This also looks fantastic: >https://www.seventransistorlabs.com/Images/High%20Voltage%20Bridge.pdf >and yes, I did in fact modify the symbol for clarity: I left off the >junction dot, which is arguably redundant since it's a three-way junction. > >Nothing wrong with taking shortcuts, as long as it's not changing the >structure. > >I'm also partial to the inductor symbol that actually looks like a coil >instead of a resistor. But that depends on whose library you're looking at; >most are passable, but some are almost impossible to tell inductors and >resistors apart. > > > > >> I bet you wouldn't like the way I draw schottky diodes, either. >> > >Don't you just use a triangle with a curly line?I draw a regular diode with a dot in the middle. That's the hot carrier.> >Again, what's the meaning? It's supposed to be a "long s", which, like the >integral symbol, abbreviates a word that starts with "S". > >Some use square curls. The square one is probably a relic of shitty CAD >and/or lazy library creators. This is a graphical decision, no worse than >using a square-shaped font for text (which is less readable, but it doesn't >change the text). > >As seen above, I'm not terribly picky with schottky diodes. A diode is a >diode, first of all; if it's a specific kind, that's better. But don't go >using a schottky symbol when you pick a zener, or vice versa. > >Likewise, a MOSFET is a MOSFET, a specific kind of transistor. (There >doesn't happen to be any "generic transistor" symbol, unlike with diodes.) > >It's not a JFET. (Which has square drawn wires and no arrows on the channel >side, because that's its structure.) > >It's not an IGBT. (Which I've drawn before in about that style, but with >diagonal C/E wires, because that's its structure.) > >If you're going to make something simple to draw, that doesn't mean >anything, you should draw a square and put "MOS" inside it. > >I mean, it works for the IEC.Do you use their logic symbols? https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/Logic-gate-nor-iec.png -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc lunatic fringe electronics
Reply by ●May 23, 20172017-05-23
On 05/23/2017 12:07 AM, Clifford Heath wrote:> On 23/05/17 12:23, Tim Williams wrote: >> "Winfield Hill" <hill@rowland.harvard.edu> wrote in message >> news:ofufrp02mta@drn.newsguy.com... >>> Yes, exactly, but to my taste, there are too damn many >>> lines for everyday use, now that we're using MOSFETs >>> by the barrel, like we used to use BJT transistors. >>> My latest amplifier has 50 of them. OK, it's a 10kV >>> amplifier, but still, gotta keep drawings readable. >> >> What? >> >> But?! >> >> You're _literally_ half a century late! >> >> Every person on Earth has a supercomputer, in their pocket, that is able >> to solve this problem! You make the symbol once, and copy-and-paste it >> wherever you need it! >> >> I mean, there is absolutely, positively no work lost, using electronic >> formats, with symbols as complicated, as baroque, as you can dream of. >> >> Printers are 100% vector to raster, thanks again to computers. No time >> lost there. >> >> If you need to take the shortcut just when diagramming something by >> hand, alright, but leaving that in? Deceptive AND lazy, my god... :-( > > Tim, > > A drawing short-cut is also a visual one. > I personally quite like the simplified symbols. > They're easy on the eye. They don't reflect reality, > but neither does any other symbol, in any alphabet. > > That's why they're called "symbols".BS. Alphabetic glyphs are more or less unrelated to the sounds they represent, but a (non-alphabetic) symbol is not a random one-to-one correspondence. The two things have to have something obvious in common for one to symbolize another. Darkness symbolizing ignorance, for instance, or as Freud said, cigars sometimes being just cigars. ;) Cheers Phil Hobbs (Who much prefers the old symbols but isn't fussy about the dashed channel line for enhancement FETs.) Cheers Phil Hobbs -- Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal Consultant ElectroOptical Innovations LLC Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics 160 North State Road #203 Briarcliff Manor NY 10510 hobbs at electrooptical dot net http://electrooptical.net
Reply by ●May 23, 20172017-05-23
On 24/05/17 02:00, Phil Hobbs wrote:> On 05/23/2017 12:07 AM, Clifford Heath wrote: >> On 23/05/17 12:23, Tim Williams wrote: >>> "Winfield Hill" <hill@rowland.harvard.edu> wrote in message >>> news:ofufrp02mta@drn.newsguy.com... >>>> Yes, exactly, but to my taste, there are too damn many >>>> lines for everyday use, now that we're using MOSFETs >>>> by the barrel, like we used to use BJT transistors. >>>> My latest amplifier has 50 of them. OK, it's a 10kV >>>> amplifier, but still, gotta keep drawings readable. >>> >>> What? >>> >>> But?! >>> >>> You're _literally_ half a century late! >>> >>> Every person on Earth has a supercomputer, in their pocket, that is able >>> to solve this problem! You make the symbol once, and copy-and-paste it >>> wherever you need it! >>> >>> I mean, there is absolutely, positively no work lost, using electronic >>> formats, with symbols as complicated, as baroque, as you can dream of. >>> >>> Printers are 100% vector to raster, thanks again to computers. No time >>> lost there. >>> >>> If you need to take the shortcut just when diagramming something by >>> hand, alright, but leaving that in? Deceptive AND lazy, my god... :-( >> >> Tim, >> >> A drawing short-cut is also a visual one. >> I personally quite like the simplified symbols. >> They're easy on the eye. They don't reflect reality, >> but neither does any other symbol, in any alphabet. >> >> That's why they're called "symbols". > > BS. Alphabetic glyphs are more or less unrelated to the sounds they > represent, but a (non-alphabetic) symbol is not a random one-to-one > correspondence. The two things have to have something obvious in common > for one to symbolize anotherPerhaps I should have said, there's only a weak correspondence between reality and the structure of the symbol, a hieroglyph with the function of a mnemonic. You couldn't use a cave painting as instructions to build a bison. There's no good reason why a mosfet symbol needs to reflect the physical structure. CAD tools can do anything, as Tim points out, but sometimes it's nice to white-board stuff too. Clifford Heath
Reply by ●May 23, 20172017-05-23
>There's no good reason why a mosfet symbol needs to reflect the >physical structure.When everything is going as planned--current coming in via NMOS drains and going out by PMOS drains or NMOS source resistors--it's all happy-clappy and general goodness. Alas that's not always the case, and the exceptions are _expensive_. I find the old symbols much better for spotting bugs. It's useful to be reminded of the body diode when looking for lock-up states and supply sequence vulnerabilities, for instance. Cheers Phil Hobbs
Reply by ●May 23, 20172017-05-23
On Tue, 23 May 2017 07:31:03 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:>On Tue, 23 May 2017 03:36:43 -0500, "Tim Williams" ><tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> wrote: > >>"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote in message >>news:ced7ic5ns3ibkiq85nvij4s8n0t7u4uahs@4ax.com... >>> Don't be a symbol nazi. >>> >> >>I'll be whatever I want. This is my gripe thread, get your own. ;-) >> >>I don't see any rational argument against my rational argument, so I'm >>taking that to mean that I've won, and sufficiently embarassed everyone* >>away from submitting their opinions. >> >>*Not excluding myself, y'see, for I know how internet arguments go. :^) >> >> >>> The Win-style symbol is clean and intuitive; you can feel the current >>> flow. The fussy one has resolution problems even with CAD schematics. >>> And it's ugly. >> >>1. Not intuitive. It's meaningless! > >Some people just lack intuition, I guess. > >> >>What does the arrow mean? Diode? So it's shorting out the supply? > >It's the way the current flows. Like a bipolar. Or a diode. > > >> >>That's precisely the mistake my OP example made. How is that intuitive? >> >>2. You're really grasping at straws with this one. CAD workstations have >>had sufficient resolution since, well, ever, as far as I know. More than >>predating myself, let alone my career! > >We print schematics on B sized paper. This may help: > >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper > > > > >> >>Even a crummy 100 DPI bitmap resolves them excellently: >>https://www.seventransistorlabs.com/Images/Flyback_Snubber_Snippet.png >>Fits quite nicely there, if I do say so myself. > >Ooh, ugly. > > >> >>Vector formats have been available for ages (I have Adobe Reader on my >>Pentium machine, for god's sake). Any argument about finite resolution is >>fully surpassed: we have _infinite_ resolution to draw with! >> >>This also looks fantastic: >>https://www.seventransistorlabs.com/Images/High%20Voltage%20Bridge.pdf >>and yes, I did in fact modify the symbol for clarity: I left off the >>junction dot, which is arguably redundant since it's a three-way junction. >> >>Nothing wrong with taking shortcuts, as long as it's not changing the >>structure. >> >>I'm also partial to the inductor symbol that actually looks like a coil >>instead of a resistor. But that depends on whose library you're looking at; >>most are passable, but some are almost impossible to tell inductors and >>resistors apart. >> >> >> >> >>> I bet you wouldn't like the way I draw schottky diodes, either. >>> >> >>Don't you just use a triangle with a curly line? > >I draw a regular diode with a dot in the middle. That's the hot >carrier.Is it red? FWIW, I like your symbols too.> > >> >>Again, what's the meaning? It's supposed to be a "long s", which, like the >>integral symbol, abbreviates a word that starts with "S". >> >>Some use square curls. The square one is probably a relic of shitty CAD >>and/or lazy library creators. This is a graphical decision, no worse than >>using a square-shaped font for text (which is less readable, but it doesn't >>change the text). >> >>As seen above, I'm not terribly picky with schottky diodes. A diode is a >>diode, first of all; if it's a specific kind, that's better. But don't go >>using a schottky symbol when you pick a zener, or vice versa. >> >>Likewise, a MOSFET is a MOSFET, a specific kind of transistor. (There >>doesn't happen to be any "generic transistor" symbol, unlike with diodes.) >> >>It's not a JFET. (Which has square drawn wires and no arrows on the channel >>side, because that's its structure.) >> >>It's not an IGBT. (Which I've drawn before in about that style, but with >>diagonal C/E wires, because that's its structure.) >> >>If you're going to make something simple to draw, that doesn't mean >>anything, you should draw a square and put "MOS" inside it. >> >>I mean, it works for the IEC. > >Do you use their logic symbols? > >https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/Logic-gate-nor-iec.pngThat's not so bad, quite like IBM's forty something years ago (when the only printers were chain printers). Try their MSI logic symbols. Yech!
Reply by ●May 24, 20172017-05-24
On Tue, 23 May 2017 20:02:10 -0400, krw@notreal.com wrote:>On Tue, 23 May 2017 07:31:03 -0700, John Larkin ><jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote: > >>On Tue, 23 May 2017 03:36:43 -0500, "Tim Williams" >><tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> wrote: >> >>>"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote in message >>>news:ced7ic5ns3ibkiq85nvij4s8n0t7u4uahs@4ax.com... >>>> Don't be a symbol nazi. >>>> >>> >>>I'll be whatever I want. This is my gripe thread, get your own. ;-) >>> >>>I don't see any rational argument against my rational argument, so I'm >>>taking that to mean that I've won, and sufficiently embarassed everyone* >>>away from submitting their opinions. >>> >>>*Not excluding myself, y'see, for I know how internet arguments go. :^) >>> >>> >>>> The Win-style symbol is clean and intuitive; you can feel the current >>>> flow. The fussy one has resolution problems even with CAD schematics. >>>> And it's ugly. >>> >>>1. Not intuitive. It's meaningless! >> >>Some people just lack intuition, I guess. >> >>> >>>What does the arrow mean? Diode? So it's shorting out the supply? >> >>It's the way the current flows. Like a bipolar. Or a diode. >> >> >>> >>>That's precisely the mistake my OP example made. How is that intuitive? >>> >>>2. You're really grasping at straws with this one. CAD workstations have >>>had sufficient resolution since, well, ever, as far as I know. More than >>>predating myself, let alone my career! >> >>We print schematics on B sized paper. This may help: >> >>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper >> >> >> >> >>> >>>Even a crummy 100 DPI bitmap resolves them excellently: >>>https://www.seventransistorlabs.com/Images/Flyback_Snubber_Snippet.png >>>Fits quite nicely there, if I do say so myself. >> >>Ooh, ugly. >> >> >>> >>>Vector formats have been available for ages (I have Adobe Reader on my >>>Pentium machine, for god's sake). Any argument about finite resolution is >>>fully surpassed: we have _infinite_ resolution to draw with! >>> >>>This also looks fantastic: >>>https://www.seventransistorlabs.com/Images/High%20Voltage%20Bridge.pdf >>>and yes, I did in fact modify the symbol for clarity: I left off the >>>junction dot, which is arguably redundant since it's a three-way junction. >>> >>>Nothing wrong with taking shortcuts, as long as it's not changing the >>>structure. >>> >>>I'm also partial to the inductor symbol that actually looks like a coil >>>instead of a resistor. But that depends on whose library you're looking at; >>>most are passable, but some are almost impossible to tell inductors and >>>resistors apart. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> I bet you wouldn't like the way I draw schottky diodes, either. >>>> >>> >>>Don't you just use a triangle with a curly line? >> >>I draw a regular diode with a dot in the middle. That's the hot >>carrier. > >Is it red? > >FWIW, I like your symbols too. >> >> >>> >>>Again, what's the meaning? It's supposed to be a "long s", which, like the >>>integral symbol, abbreviates a word that starts with "S". >>> >>>Some use square curls. The square one is probably a relic of shitty CAD >>>and/or lazy library creators. This is a graphical decision, no worse than >>>using a square-shaped font for text (which is less readable, but it doesn't >>>change the text). >>> >>>As seen above, I'm not terribly picky with schottky diodes. A diode is a >>>diode, first of all; if it's a specific kind, that's better. But don't go >>>using a schottky symbol when you pick a zener, or vice versa. >>> >>>Likewise, a MOSFET is a MOSFET, a specific kind of transistor. (There >>>doesn't happen to be any "generic transistor" symbol, unlike with diodes.) >>> >>>It's not a JFET. (Which has square drawn wires and no arrows on the channel >>>side, because that's its structure.) >>> >>>It's not an IGBT. (Which I've drawn before in about that style, but with >>>diagonal C/E wires, because that's its structure.) >>> >>>If you're going to make something simple to draw, that doesn't mean >>>anything, you should draw a square and put "MOS" inside it. >>> >>>I mean, it works for the IEC. >> >>Do you use their logic symbols? >> >>https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/Logic-gate-nor-iec.png > >That's not so bad, quite like IBM's forty something years ago (when >the only printers were chain printers). Try their MSI logic symbols. >Yech!IBM used to draw a transistor as three stacked rectangles. Also printable on a line printer. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc lunatic fringe electronics
Reply by ●May 24, 20172017-05-24
On Tue, 23 May 2017 21:07:49 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:>On Tue, 23 May 2017 20:02:10 -0400, krw@notreal.com wrote: > >>On Tue, 23 May 2017 07:31:03 -0700, John Larkin >><jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote: >> >>>On Tue, 23 May 2017 03:36:43 -0500, "Tim Williams" >>><tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> wrote: >>> >>>>"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote in message >>>>news:ced7ic5ns3ibkiq85nvij4s8n0t7u4uahs@4ax.com... >>>>> Don't be a symbol nazi. >>>>> >>>> >>>>I'll be whatever I want. This is my gripe thread, get your own. ;-) >>>> >>>>I don't see any rational argument against my rational argument, so I'm >>>>taking that to mean that I've won, and sufficiently embarassed everyone* >>>>away from submitting their opinions. >>>> >>>>*Not excluding myself, y'see, for I know how internet arguments go. :^) >>>> >>>> >>>>> The Win-style symbol is clean and intuitive; you can feel the current >>>>> flow. The fussy one has resolution problems even with CAD schematics. >>>>> And it's ugly. >>>> >>>>1. Not intuitive. It's meaningless! >>> >>>Some people just lack intuition, I guess. >>> >>>> >>>>What does the arrow mean? Diode? So it's shorting out the supply? >>> >>>It's the way the current flows. Like a bipolar. Or a diode. >>> >>> >>>> >>>>That's precisely the mistake my OP example made. How is that intuitive? >>>> >>>>2. You're really grasping at straws with this one. CAD workstations have >>>>had sufficient resolution since, well, ever, as far as I know. More than >>>>predating myself, let alone my career! >>> >>>We print schematics on B sized paper. This may help: >>> >>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>Even a crummy 100 DPI bitmap resolves them excellently: >>>>https://www.seventransistorlabs.com/Images/Flyback_Snubber_Snippet.png >>>>Fits quite nicely there, if I do say so myself. >>> >>>Ooh, ugly. >>> >>> >>>> >>>>Vector formats have been available for ages (I have Adobe Reader on my >>>>Pentium machine, for god's sake). Any argument about finite resolution is >>>>fully surpassed: we have _infinite_ resolution to draw with! >>>> >>>>This also looks fantastic: >>>>https://www.seventransistorlabs.com/Images/High%20Voltage%20Bridge.pdf >>>>and yes, I did in fact modify the symbol for clarity: I left off the >>>>junction dot, which is arguably redundant since it's a three-way junction. >>>> >>>>Nothing wrong with taking shortcuts, as long as it's not changing the >>>>structure. >>>> >>>>I'm also partial to the inductor symbol that actually looks like a coil >>>>instead of a resistor. But that depends on whose library you're looking at; >>>>most are passable, but some are almost impossible to tell inductors and >>>>resistors apart. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> I bet you wouldn't like the way I draw schottky diodes, either. >>>>> >>>> >>>>Don't you just use a triangle with a curly line? >>> >>>I draw a regular diode with a dot in the middle. That's the hot >>>carrier. >> >>Is it red? >> >>FWIW, I like your symbols too. >>> >>> >>>> >>>>Again, what's the meaning? It's supposed to be a "long s", which, like the >>>>integral symbol, abbreviates a word that starts with "S". >>>> >>>>Some use square curls. The square one is probably a relic of shitty CAD >>>>and/or lazy library creators. This is a graphical decision, no worse than >>>>using a square-shaped font for text (which is less readable, but it doesn't >>>>change the text). >>>> >>>>As seen above, I'm not terribly picky with schottky diodes. A diode is a >>>>diode, first of all; if it's a specific kind, that's better. But don't go >>>>using a schottky symbol when you pick a zener, or vice versa. >>>> >>>>Likewise, a MOSFET is a MOSFET, a specific kind of transistor. (There >>>>doesn't happen to be any "generic transistor" symbol, unlike with diodes.) >>>> >>>>It's not a JFET. (Which has square drawn wires and no arrows on the channel >>>>side, because that's its structure.) >>>> >>>>It's not an IGBT. (Which I've drawn before in about that style, but with >>>>diagonal C/E wires, because that's its structure.) >>>> >>>>If you're going to make something simple to draw, that doesn't mean >>>>anything, you should draw a square and put "MOS" inside it. >>>> >>>>I mean, it works for the IEC. >>> >>>Do you use their logic symbols? >>> >>>https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/Logic-gate-nor-iec.png >> >>That's not so bad, quite like IBM's forty something years ago (when >>the only printers were chain printers). Try their MSI logic symbols. >>Yech! > >IBM used to draw a transistor as three stacked rectangles. Also >printable on a line printer.The official symbols had the three boxes with a fourth being an isosceles triangle pointed inward or outward, marking the emitter. These weren't printable on chain printers, though. The symbols for logic diagrams (known as ALDs, or Automated Logic Drawings) were different. Resistors and capacitors were square boxes, too. Made for really readable analog schematics. ;-) +---C-+ +---R-+ +---TR+ | | | | | C---- ----+ |---- ----| |---- ----B | | | | | | >---- | | | | | | Polarized Resistor NPN cap +---A-+ +---O-+ +---?-+ ----| | ----& | ---- | | &---- | |----- | |---- ----| | ----& | ---+ | | | | | | | NAND Negative OR Op Amp (NAND) (don't remember what the '?' is) Inputs _always_ on the left and outputs on the right. Having both the positive and negative logic symbols was nice. Everywhere else I've done it, the other engineers look at me like I have a third eye.
Reply by ●May 25, 20172017-05-25
Why the need for such inaccurate/klutzy symbol representations? I generally use... <http://www.analog-innovations.com/SED/MOS_Symbol_Discussion_(SED).png> Besides, symbols are only there for human consumption, All that matters is how the devices netlist so that simulators (or PCB software) properly perform. ...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson | mens | | Analog Innovations | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | STV, Queen Creek, AZ 85142 Skype: skypeanalog | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | Thinking outside the box... producing elegant solutions. "It is not in doing what you like, but in liking what you do that is the secret of happiness." -James Barrie
