Interesting thread... 

The reason 4 way ties are 'verboten', is actually because of the potential
for mis-interpretation of the circuit. A copy of a schematic on a Xerox, or
blueprint machine.. (that dated me), may have a 'spec' or 'splotch' or piece
of 'terra firma' or other foreign object encrusted upon the glass and can
transfer an imaged 'dot' to the surface of the copy, thereby potentially
connecting two crossing lines un-intentionally. The rule was invented to
avoid having that scenario misconnect a schematic line accidentally. They
also had us draft them large to avoid the same problem. 
Some of you may remember the old 'hump' at crossovers we used to use to make
sure no one mis-interpreted the cross over as a connect spot. We did away
with those in preference to the simpler connect dot rule. That's the one you
see now on CAD schematic capture systems.

 
Bill Brooks 
PCB Design Engineer , C.I.D., C.I.I.
TITAN SYSTEMS CORPORATION
DATRON WORLD COMMUNICATIONS DIVISION
3030 Enterprise Court, Vista, CA 92083 
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Website: http://www.dtwc.com/
Tel: (760)597-1500 Ext 3772 Fax: (760)597-1510 
_______________________________________
Bill Brooks 
Adjunct Instructor - DT210 PCB Design, RM E13
Palomar College , Trades and Industries Dept.
1440 West Mission Road
San Marcos, CA 92069-1487
Tel: (760)744-1150 Ext 5584
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.palomar.edu/
_______________________________________
Member of the San Diego Chapter of the IPC Designers Council
Communications Officer, Web Manager
http://www.ipc.org/SanDiego/
http://home.fda.net/bbrooks/pca/pca.htm




-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Jenkins [mailto:anjen1@;ameritech.net] 
Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2002 8:17 AM
To: Protel EDA Forum
Subject: Re: [PEDA] OT Rebuttal WARNING!!! Junctions at + points



Didn't have time to reply til now...
 > From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax [mailto:abd@;lomaxdesign.com] 
 > 
 > At 09:19 AM 10/14/2002 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 
 > 
 > >Bug's a bug's a bug, and that's what the original post 
 > endeavored to report. 
 > 
 > We agree that the disappearance of a junction is a bug.

Do we? Good, then I've just saved several months of unnecessary argument
over Lomaxian "trivialities". It's well worth having lil'Danny Lomax rebuke
me for sloppy schpellink to hear that admission so quickly.

 > It is true that, sometimes, a four-way junction 
 > can represent a circuit jst a little more compactly 
 > can two three-way junctions.

Yes, it is. But even more important, it can often illuminate purpose,
instead of unnecessarily disguising or otherwise confusing a circuit or
subcircuit's basic purpose (whether by intentional or _ignorant_ oversight),
which is, in my experience, often times the outcome of the unthinking usage
of drafting-school rules.

 > The compactness 
 > is not at all worth the potential confusion.

To whom? Draftsmen, or those who actually originate the ideas from which
draftsmen cull their daily bread? Eye of the Beholder...I prefer to avoid
those who blindly think inside the box, and I surely don't attempt to make
friends with them, be they draftsmen or doctors or anywhere in between. 

I would argue just the opposite as you and your color-blind fellows, that
_arbitrarily_ applying drafting rules to electrical schematics is not at all
worth the potential confusion to dissemination of the ideas which they
contain. Not that I believe four-way junctions should be used
indiscriminately, but that they should not be avoided universally simply to
comply with grunted dogma. 

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

Yes, I'm sure you would. And that comment by itself makes it all the more
important for someone to state clear objection to your third-tier dogma, to
hopefully avoid future "accidental" losses of important code from EDA
packages at the behest of misguided advisors like you. 

And remember, Danny, always fall back on pedantic argumentation in _liue_ of
substance. After all, when all else fails, you may as well attempt to make
headway by mocking typos, whether actual (transitor), or perceived, as by
one with an obviously inflexible, dotardly sense of language...

Shoe_Fit

aj

See:
H-Bridge, http://www.national.com/ds/LM/LMD18201.pdf anyone? I/O (diode)
clamp http://www.semiconwell.com/jd_net/swdn006.htm? Transistor amp
http://www.ele.auckland.ac.nz/info/techos/design/tools/ampli.htm 
http://www.swarthmore.edu/NatSci/echeeve1/Ref/Amplifiers/ ?, etc.
http://www.physics.pacificu.edu/hall/electronics/ElecHWTrans.html
http://www.research.microsoft.com/~gbell/Computer_Engineering/00000126.htm 
http://www-ece.rice.edu/~jdw/242_lab4/exp4.3.html
http://www.du.edu/~etuttle/electron/elect8.htm
http://www.williamson-labs.com/480_xtor.htm#emitter-follower
http://freehost05.websamba.com/electronicsclub/amp_config/config.htm
http://www-s.ti.com/sc/ds/sn74f1018.pdf
http://www.californiamicrodevices.com/products/data/pdf/pac_dn010.pdf

P.S. Did I say "blah blah blah"? I'm infinitely amused by dogmatic idiots.

- Never confuse a cloak of authority with actual authority. One can always
buy or steal a cloak.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* To post a message: mailto:proteledaforum@;techservinc.com
*
* To leave this list visit:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html
*
* Contact the list manager:
* mailto:ForumAdministrator@;TechServInc.com
*
* 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