the LANGUAGE of electronics, a minor rant

[Roff]

I just do a 'convert to .wmf' in LTSpice, import it into OpenOffice.org, then export it as a .PNG, it works every time and seems to give excellant results. If I wanted to I could convert them to .PDFs but I wouldn't want to wish waiting for, I don't know how long for Adobe to load, on anyone unless it's a very large circuit.

In LTSpice, I do a "copy to clipboard" (or ctrl-c), paste it into Paint, edit as required, and save as .PNG.

 

[Speakerguy]

I love how in organic chemistry, they make you learn how to spell out names for horrendous compounds, when much better understanding is achieved with some lines and letters much more easily. Convinced me engineers are smarter than chemists. They'd probably want to come up with an IUPAC naming convention for circuits.

 

[RadioRon]

As we can see, there are many different ways to cut and paste something from a drawing or cad program. I see how a novice might be too confused by all this to even bother. My suggestion is that they sketch a schematic on a piece of paper with a pencil, then scan it and post the scan.

However, based on the comments, I gather there is no easy way to put something in the bulletin board code. Perhaps it would be useful to have a large rectangular area at the top of each sub-topics page that flashes a bright red message saying something like "Post a schematic with your question". This should be as simple as putting up advertising.

 

[on1aag]

People who post schematics as a very fuzzy JPG file type should be hanged or shot.

I wonder what he has in mind for me ?

on1aag.

 

[ericgibbs]

As we can see, there are many different ways to cut and paste something from a drawing or cad program. I see how a novice might be too confused by all this to even bother. My suggestion is that they sketch a schematic on a piece of paper with a pencil, then scan it and post the scan.

Hi Ron,
I would agree a simple hand sketch is often all that is required.

IMO all that really matters is that the OP posts a picture of what he is trying to do. The argument about jpg, gifs. png is irrelevent, its not a work of art, I dont care if its a little fuzzy or has dots or has a black background etc, as long I can understand the drawing I dont care.

An example of this applies to a thread running about amplifying a 'tacho' signal.
Numerous suggestions have been made how to do this, without any idea of the waveform, other than it measures 2 to 3V on a meter??

Happy New Year to All...

EDIT: Hi on1aag,
Thats a clear, understandable drawing, it dosn't give me a problem....

 

[Hero999]

audioguru does have a point though, anyone who posts a circuit that is to fuzzy or spotty to read has wasted both their time and everyone elses.

That said, I do agree with you, providing the diagram is clear and you can read all the component values then I don't see the problem.

 

[ericgibbs]

audioguru does have a point though, anyone who posts a circuit that is to fuzzy or spotty to read has wasted both their time and everyone elses.

That said, I do agree with you, providing the diagram is clear and you can read all the component values then I don't see the problem.

hi Hero, Happy New Year!

IMHO I dont think 'agu' has a point at all, regarding fuzzy or spotty drawings.
If the drawing conveys the OP's message and its accurate, its OK by me.!
I have seen drawings which are neat and tidy which are totally inaccurate and misleading.

When I submit drawings to a business client/customer, I do ensure that they are accurate and well drawn.

I suspect most experienced engineers work from rough sketches while developing a project.

 

[Nigel Goodwin]

IMO all that really matters is that the OP posts a picture of what he is trying to do. The argument about jpg, gifs. png is irrelevent, its not a work of art, I dont care if its a little fuzzy or has dots or has a black background etc, as long I can understand the drawing I dont care.

It's merely a question of using the right format for the job, a GIF or PNG gives a MUCH better picture than JPG, and at MUCH smaller size - why use something that gives a poor picture and a much longer download time?.

 

[ericgibbs]

It's merely a question of using the right format for the job, a GIF or PNG gives a MUCH better picture than JPG, and at MUCH smaller size - why use something that gives a poor picture and a much longer download time?.

Happy New Year Nigel,

BUT my disagreement isn't with file sizes or quality, as you may have noticed I do try to gif my drawings in in order to reduce the size,, IIRC never downloaded a bmp.

The constant dripping about dots and fuzzy pictures is my point.
Often the images are just taken from the monitor as quick way of getting a point across in a post.

 

[mvs sarma]

It's merely a question of using the right format for the job, a GIF or PNG gives a MUCH better picture than JPG, and at MUCH smaller size - why use something that gives a poor picture and a much longer download time?.

All discussion being fine, I suggest that at the upload point, better leave an instruction of loading only either GIF or PNG, and if needed the link to load BMP and JPG can be removed for some time. Also, methods how to size and convert bmp or jpg may be suggested, right there.

These steps will perhaps put an end to the practice of OPs posting things in the wrong way.

A VERY HAPPY NEW YEAR 2008, to Nigel Goodwin, the Super Moderator and all members of the site.

 

[Nigel Goodwin]

All discussion being fine, I suggest that at the upload point, better leave an instruction of loading only either GIF or PNG, and if needed the link to load BMP and JPG can be removed for some time. Also, methods how to size and convert bmp or jpg may be suggested, right there.

Not much point, people don't read it anyway!

I didn't think BMP's were allowed in any case?.

There's certainly a case for allowing JPG's though, but not for computer generated drawings where they are completely unsuitable, but for photographs or scans JPG are fine.

 

[Hero999]

Another thing is, if the diagram isn't clear enough to read then there's no point in posting it in the first place.

GIFs are alright as long as you're aware that they only support 256 colours and may appear spotty if they've been converted from a 16 million colour image format such as a BMP. Anyway it's no longer 1992, computers are no longer limited to 256 colours, it's now 2008 so use PNGs which support 16 million colours.

 

[Nigel Goodwin]

Why would you want 16 million colours for a black diagram on a white background? - surely TWO colours is all that's required.

 

[ericgibbs]

Why would you want 16 million colours for a black diagram on a white background? - surely TWO colours is all that's required.

hi,
I cant even see 16 million colours, so why bulk up the file size.
I find that 256 or even 16 are more than enough.

Sorry to agree with you on this occasion Nigel, I will try not to let it happen again...

 

[audioguru]

Thats a clear, understandable drawing, it dosn't give me a problem....

The diodes, resistors and capacitors are clear.
What is the scribbled thing in the center? A hammock?

 

[ericgibbs]

The diodes, resistors and capacitors are clear.
What is the scribbled thing in the center? A hammock?

Once again you are missing the point.

Even as a png file the 'thing' would still look like a hammock,

I agree, it would a clear non fuzzy or dotty hammock, but still possibly a hammock.

Dont confuse a drawings clarity with its accuracy or ambiguity.

 

[on1aag]

Is it a hammock ?

Hi Audioguru,

The diodes, resistors and capacitors are clear.
What is the scribbled thing in the center? A hammock?

The BY584 diodes and the working voltages of the capacitors
should indicate that there are high voltages present. If you apply
230 volt ac to the circuit you will find that there is 1300 volt with
the 230 volt line voltage superimposed across the hammock.
If you haven't guessed it by now let me give you a clue.

on1aag.

 

[ericgibbs]

Hi Audioguru,

The BY584 diodes and the working voltages of the capacitors
should indicate that there are high voltages present. If you apply
230 volt ac to the circuit you will find that there is 1300 volt with
the 230 volt line voltage superimposed across the hammock.
If you haven't guessed it by now let me give you a clue.

on1aag.

hi,
It was obviously a gas filled tube, ref the small circle in the 'hammock', just didn't want to suck all the fun out of it..

Regards

 

[audioguru]

I thought "the hammock" was a neon bulb since it wasn't labelled.
It was posted as a very clear GIF file type.
This one is a JPG file type because it has two photos in it.

 

[Hero999]

Why would you want 16 million colours for a black diagram on a white background? - surely TWO colours is all that's required.

I would agree but the problem is that many people scan drawings in or convert them from JPG to GIF format. This results in all the other colours in the picture that aren't quite white or not quite black being dithered so it looks spotty.

Regarding the hammock; I only knew it was a fluorescent tube because I've seen the circuit before. The diodes and electrolytic capacitors form a half wave voltage quadrupler which generates a 1.3kV spike which ignites the tube. Once the tube has been lit the non-polarised capacitors act as a ballast and power the tube as normal.

There's no voltage or frequency on the power supply so I assume the circuit runs of 230AC as the electrolytics are rated for 350V.

The ballast capacitors aren't labled there are no component designators.

Unless you only want to dimly light a tube this circuit isn't very practical as to even light a 4W tube at full brightness the ballast capacitors will need to be 5:mu:F which is quite a large at they'll need to be rated at 120VAC.