Abd, AJ, and all, see below.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Abd ul-Rahman Lomax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Protel EDA Forum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:57 AM
Subject: Re: [PEDA] WARNING!!! Junctions at + points can disappear in DXP

> At 09:19 AM 10/14/2002 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >And that, in liue of the useless blather about "Four ways may not be used
> >for any reason" coming from the two-year school, is all that matters.
> My,, what a way with words! Mr. Jenkins could write a book, "How to
> offend and drive away people." It would be a classic. 'Lieue' was
> mispelled, BTW, not that PCB designers are expected to be English majors.

Lieu works OK in my spell checker. but "lieue" sure rings a bell, and in
fact recommends that it be replaced with "lieu" - but what the hell does it
matter anyway . . .

The issue is not to win friends and influence people, any more than it is to
nit pick over spelling.

The real issue is to get the people south of the boarder who don't have any
inkling of the real issues involved in the real world of electronics to stop
writing software that screws up a perfectly good schematic of an oscillator
or other symmetrical circuit that legitimately uses a 4 way connection.

> Actually, I never went to school to learn what I do, except for one
> half-year electronics course in high school (vacuum tubes!), and some
> physics at CalTech. There are lot of experienced PCB designers who are
> much against the use of four-way connections, and for good reason.

Possibly if you did attend a little more school you would not be so quick to
condom things that have legitimate reasons for being the way they.

> >Bug's a bug's a bug, and that's what the original post endeavored to
> We agree that the disappearance of a junction is a bug.

Any software that in any manner alters a file that it didn't create should
specify the name and address of the IDIOT who wrote it so that we can put a
contract out on him and have him summarily executed, immediately, before he
is allowed to screw something else up.

I will try and be very polite and politically correct about it.


At a very minimum, if any changes "have" to be made for any reason
whatsoever, they should be clearly specified before hand and the option
given to NOT make the change. If there is some incompatibility with the new
database / file / structure / system, then the item can be imported as it
originally stood and flagged as an error.


>     . . .  However, it should
> be noted that this particular bug predates CAD software.

I think you mean "practice" here.

>      . . . The original
> reason for disallowing the use of four-way junctions is that the tie dots
> might easily be lost in reproduction, and even if they are not lost, the
> eye reads a three-way junction *much* more quickly than a four-way, which
> resembles, too much, crossed lines.

Not true, it was actually just the opposite, because of the "crud" that
built up on the glass tube of the old "Ozlaid" or other "Blue Print"
machine, which "crud", or other pieces of dirt that might be sitting on the
vellum would block the light in exposing the "diazo" paper, which had the
effect of putting little "spots" and "dots" on the "copy", which could be
interpreted as a "junction", and notwithstanding all of that anyway, it has
never been anything more than a simply a recommendation.


This is in fact the whole problem that AJ and I and I am sure others are
objecting to.



Certainly it has been "recommended" for years that people NOT use a 4-WAY
connection on a schematic, if it is avoidable, and there have ALWAYS been
EXCEPTIONS to the "recommendation"

Actually for a time, some of the MIL standards (and even ANSI if I remember
correctly) did in fact attempt to "regulate" the 4-Way connection into
obscurity, but even that was ONLY a "recommendation" and had its accepted
"exceptions', but even that attempt to "regulate" was even ultimately
withdrawn. If you will actually remember, this was the same "campaign" that
wanted to do away with "solder dots" all together and just use "T" junctions
for connections, and to deal with the situation you described earlier, they
did would not even want to let you use a "crossover" (2 lines crossing at
right angles), but rather had you use a little loop to "jump" over the other
line to show that it was not connected. Fortunately, even those were only

There are in fact legitimate reasons to use a 4-Way connection, and these
have never been "disallowed".

> Further, there have been *other* bugs, I've seen them in Protel and in
> OrCAD, involving disappearing tie dots.

And the lousy designer has been using the disappearing, "solder dot" for as
long as he has been using other "disappearing" excuses for his blunders and
failure to check his designs, such as the disappearing "line",  "trace",
"track", "symbol", "component, or even a whole sheet of the schematic.

> Frankly, I'd design the software to *reject* four-way junctions. Try to
> make one, it would refuse (and suggest alternatives).

That is why I for one, and I am sure others too, are glad that you don't
design the software.

>    . . . Load one, it would
> flag it as an error. But, yes, it should not remove an existing junction
> regardless.

This I will agree with.

> >P.S. Draw the classical transitor amplifier.
> What's a "transitor"?

While I am sure that you really are just trying to be funny, you do know
exactly what he ment, and unfortunately, this is not a joke, this is a real

Most idiots today, even those who have a degree and call themselves an EE,
really do not know how to draw a schematic properly, with correct flow, and
correct symbology, correctly oriented.

Most EE's today think that the standard symbol for any electronic component
is a rectangle with 1 line for each connection, correctly aligned with the
orientation of the pins on the device and in "pin number order".

It really is sick, and it really is not a joke.

> It is true that, sometimes, a four-way junction can represent a circuit
> just a little more compactly than two three-way junctions. The compactness
> is not at all worth the potential confusion.

This truely illustrates the problem, for you appear to believe that it is
all about being compact, when there are times that compactness has nothing
to do with it.

AJ, the problem is not with drawing a "classical" transistor amplifier, or
even a transistor amplifier, the real problem is simply finding someone who
knows how to draw a real schematic.

The problem is grossly compounded when the people who are writing the
software do not even understand the problem and know how to draw a schematic
or even a schematic symbol.


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
* To leave this list visit:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html
* Contact the list manager:
* Forum Guidelines Rules:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html
* Browse or Search previous postings:
* http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Reply via email to