sci.electronics.design | Can we PLEASE stop using these shitty symbols?| page 6

Reply by ●May 28, 20172017-05-28

> I like the insulated-gate-bipolar symbol because it's instantly, 
>intuitively obvious which way the current will flow. I'm not so much 
>interested in the semiconductor physics as feeling how the circuit 
>works.

The current flows as it does because of the device physics and bias conditions, not because of a magic symbol. 

I and the other right-thinking Little-Endians prefer the symbols that better express the way the devices actually work, over a range of conditions wider than the Big-Endian symbol can. 

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

Reply by Clifford Heath ●May 28, 20172017-05-28

On 28/05/17 10:22, whit3rd wrote:
> On Monday, May 22, 2017 at 9:07:57 PM UTC-7, Clifford Heath wrote:
>> On 23/05/17 12:23, Tim Williams wrote:
>
>>> I mean, there is absolutely, positively no work lost, using electronic
>>> formats, with symbols as complicated, as baroque, as you can dream of.
>
>> A drawing short-cut is also a visual one.
>> I personally quite like the simplified symbols.
>> They're easy on the eye. They don't reflect reality,
>> but neither does any other symbol, in any alphabet.
>
> That's SO untrue.   There are entire written languages based on
> pictographs

We have different definitions of "reflect reality".
Obviously there are similarities, and schematic
attempts at representations, but they're still
just symbols, mnemonics.

Reply by Jan Panteltje ●May 28, 20172017-05-28

On a sunny day (27 May 2017 19:24:49 -0700) it happened Winfield Hill
<hill@rowland.harvard.edu> wrote in <ogdcdh02btc@drn.newsguy.com>:

>pcdhobbs@gmail.com wrote...
>>
>> The BJT-ish symbols are faster to draw, so Big-Endians
>> prefer them.  Their deviation from the correct view
>> naturally impairs their hand-eye coordination as well
>> as their aesthetic judgement.
>
> Bah, humbug.  I don't believe in a single symbol, and
> use the full symbol whenever it's useful.  My preference
> has only a little to do with being faster to draw, but
> lots to do with reducing drawing clutter, so it can be
> more quickly comprehended.  A clear simple drawing,
> without leaving out anything critical, is very useful.

There are many aspects and most paint only part of the elephant.

There is more to those symbols then just the design process
there is also the service process,
having been repairing all sorts of high - and low end
stuff for many years, you want the technician who has to repair it to be able to
understand the circuit too.
It is not just about inside chips, he could not care less.

So the requirements are different.
These days they do not supply circuit diagram anymore,
not sure about service manuals, I have seen people just swap out units.
What a waste (financially too), repairing at component level is well,
environmentally friendly.

Sometimes I hear about those pencil drawing I make, 'cannot read it'
apart from people trying to read it with a Nipkow disk or similar,
those are all things I draw so I can build it, and most important
10 years later repair it (hundreds of wires often, if one does break
on both sides you are in trouble).
So I use it to build it, and I use it to repair it, trouble shoot if there is any.
For the IC designer 'to repair it' has no meaning and he can make his own symbols.
Jim Thompson could have used 'D' for DMOS and not 'O' (as in inverter),
but he is free as nobody else in the outside world will use his drawings.
I should be using some graphics program to draw stuff, but that requires a peesee,
and I have no peesee on when I am soldering, and last time I used a printer
was to print a map of some place hidden in the boonies where I had to pick something up.
Whiteboards are too big, paper is patient, part of the last circuit diagram got dissolved
as it was under a wet coffee cup.
Luckily there was enough space left:
 http://panteltje.com/pub/took_a_byte_IMG_6210.JPG

Reply by Winfield Hill ●May 28, 20172017-05-28

pcdhobbs@gmail.com wrote...
>
> I and the other right-thinking Little-Endians prefer the symbols
> that better express the way the devices actually work, over a
> range of conditions wider than the Big-Endian symbol can. 

 I don't think you use many MOSFETs in your designs, certainly
 not power MOSFETs.   In contrast, other designs increasingly
 using many power MOSFETs, so clutter and clarity is an issue. 

 These days it's hard to get a discrete MOSFET with an available
 substrate pin, and none of the power MOSFETs have one.  This
 limits the value of a symbol highlighting the substrate path.

 If the substrate diode comes into play, it's more useful to
 actually show the diode as part of the symbol.  I've seen many
 cases where the full-fledged classic MOSFET symbol has been
 supplemented with the diode.  This may be redundant,* but it
 comes about because the designer knows that many aren't always
 aware of the diode aspect of the substrate part of the symbol,
 and he wants to be sure diode action is not overlooked.  Ahem,
 would right-thinking Little-Endians eschew showing the diode?

 * One other aspect, this diode is drawn in place even though
 there's a chance of confusion, is this another required part?


-- 
 Thanks,
    - Win

Reply by Winfield Hill ●May 28, 20172017-05-28

Jan Panteltje wrote...
>
> last time I used a printer was to print a map ...
> Whiteboards are too big, paper is patient, part of the
> last circuit diagram got dissolved as it was under a
> wet coffee cup. Luckily there was enough space left:
> http://panteltje.com/pub/took_a_byte_IMG_6210.JPG

 Snork!  I assume you have one of the cheap all-in-one
 ink-jet printers.  They're nice to save scans of your 
 valuable pencil sketches, and print copies that you
 can mistreat with solder burns, or whatever.  Copies
 are useful for recording measurement notes as well.

 I got an HP 7525 for $125 at Costco, good features,
 full duplex on printing and scanning, etc.  Just be
 careful with the ink usage, they make $$ back there.


-- 
 Thanks,
    - Win