> My point was only that the EBC, AK, GDS is redundant and stupid on
> the schematic because the symbols convey the function of each pin already.
> Holding only the printed schematic in your hand, the EBC, GDS and AK
conveys
> what information that you didn't already know from the symbol? What does
it
> tell you about where to find the Base pin on a physical device on a PCBA?
> The answer to both questions is "Nothing", right? Thus it is redundant,
> useless and clutters up your schematic with useless information.
I like to use EBC, AK, and GDS because they do provide "explicit"
information. Yes, I know it's redundant, but remember, we (us Protel
people) are not the only ones that will be reading that schematic. At some
point in time, there will probably be someone reading that schematic who is
a newbie to electronics, or borderline-literate in schematic reading
ability. For them, an explicit annotation of EBC, AK, GDS, etc. helps. I
admit that sometimes it is difficult for me to tell which pin of a FET (D or
S) is referenced in a schematic if the symbol is drawn symmetrically. Then
I have to study the circuit to figure it out. In this case, an explicit
annotation of GDS would help.
Another thing that drives me crazy are the problems with polarized
capacitors. In the case of a tantalum, the + terminal is marked. In the
case of an electrolytic, the - terminal is marked. But when it comes time
to bring the netlist into a PCB, either the tantalums get connected wrong,
or the electrolytics. You have to go check each one to verify it, and
correct the wrong ones. Why, oh why, were electrolytics invented with -
terminal markings? Phooey!
Best regards,
Ivan Baggett
Bagotronix Inc.
website: www.bagotronix.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brad Velander" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'Protel EDA Forum'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 6:57 PM
Subject: Re: [PEDA] Diode pads
> Abd ul-Rahman,
> My point was only that the EBC, AK, GDS is redundant and stupid on
> the schematic because the symbols convey the function of each pin already.
> Holding only the printed schematic in your hand, the EBC, GDS and AK
conveys
> what information that you didn't already know from the symbol? What does
it
> tell you about where to find the Base pin on a physical device on a PCBA?
> The answer to both questions is "Nothing", right? Thus it is redundant,
> useless and clutters up your schematic with useless information.
>
> I agree that there is no one ideal solution. With the system I use,
> I have one SOT23 footprint for a particular package size. The symbols are
> designed to match that footprint.
>
> If you receive information as a netlist only, then the customer is
> responsible anyways right? They have to have used the right symbol with
the
> right part. If they didn't how can you possibly tell?
>
> Also, I don't display the pin numbers on transistors or diodes. As
> you said it would convey no more clarity because of the mixture of
> manufacturer numbering/labeling schemes. Likewise the EBC and GDS conveys
no
> more information either (without the datasheet). Right? Stalemate!
>
> Brad Velander,
> Lead PCB Designer,
> Norsat International Inc.,
> #300 - 4401 Still Creek Dr.,
> Burnaby, B.C., V5C 6G9.
> Tel. (604) 292-9089 direct
> Fax (604) 292-9010
> website www.norsat.com
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 5:44 PM
> > To: Protel EDA Forum
> > Subject: Re: [PEDA] Diode pads
> >
> >
> <SNIP>
> >
> > I not uncommonly receive net lists from clients and I don't have the
> > schematic. If the pins are numbered on a transistor it can be a real
> > nuisance to resolve. If the pins are lettered appropriately
> > to indicate
> > function, the intention is crystal clear even if I have to
> > mess with the
> > pad names.
> >
> <SNIP>
> >
> > Now, if it is "stupidly redundant" to display the *letters* for a
> > transistor, it is only *not* redundant to display the
> > *numbers* because the
> > numbers are not explicit. In other words, to avoid
> > redundancy, one has
> > added another level of complexity, i.e., the correlation
> > between numbers
> > and pads or pad functions. The assignment of numbers to these
> > parts is
> > quite arbitrary, as many of us have discovered to our chagrin.
> <SNIP>
> > The majority of parts most of us use fall into category 1,
> > i.e., DIPS and
> > SOICs etc., and some early CAD systems could only handle
> > numbers, which, I
> > think, is the only reason we think that using numbers for
> > polarized parts
> > is acceptable.
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Abdulrahman Lomax
> > Easthampton, Massachusetts USA
>
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* To leave this list visit:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html
*
* Contact the list manager:
* mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* Forum Guidelines Rules:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html
*
* Browse or Search previous postings:
* http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
