I'll be a bit nitpicky too. A standard is a system that is accepted and agreed upon by an industry or industry segment. SOmething you do yourself or in your shop only is a convention, not a standard.
I grew up on Q for xstr - xstr being short for transistor itself. I have no trouble adapting to foreign schematics that use T or Tr. But I would never draw one that way.
I do work on a lot of older stuff as well as new, and D for diode is pretty universal, but CR for Crystal Rectifier is still on a lot of drawings. I like it when zeners are differentiated as ZD or even just Z.
If you wish to set an artificial limit of three characters, and your system doesn't confuse you, then go for it. But I would not advise dropping such a thing on the rest of the world.
I find it quite useful to see channels each have their own hundreds series, it helps me identify the circuits. Even in video monitors, I appreciate having such conventions as the 100s are power supply, the 200s are video, the 300s are sync, the 400s are vertical, the 500s are horizontal, and so on.
In some systems, even if the whole circuit serves one purpose, if there is an auxiliary board or sub assembly, the parts on that get a different number series. I like that too.
ANything to make it more clear.
I grew up on Q for xstr - xstr being short for transistor itself. I have no trouble adapting to foreign schematics that use T or Tr. But I would never draw one that way.
I do work on a lot of older stuff as well as new, and D for diode is pretty universal, but CR for Crystal Rectifier is still on a lot of drawings. I like it when zeners are differentiated as ZD or even just Z.
If you wish to set an artificial limit of three characters, and your system doesn't confuse you, then go for it. But I would not advise dropping such a thing on the rest of the world.
I find it quite useful to see channels each have their own hundreds series, it helps me identify the circuits. Even in video monitors, I appreciate having such conventions as the 100s are power supply, the 200s are video, the 300s are sync, the 400s are vertical, the 500s are horizontal, and so on.
In some systems, even if the whole circuit serves one purpose, if there is an auxiliary board or sub assembly, the parts on that get a different number series. I like that too.
ANything to make it more clear.
Jeeez... guys... come on!
There most probably is some standards, - whether it is ISO or IEEE, I really don't care....
The reality for most of us is that we are confined to the "standard" set by our CAD system, - and that is also the case for the vast masses of commercial diagrams found during at least the last 20 years or more.
In most CAD systems you can override the system, and label the components as you please, but for most systems this will probably muck up some internal routines for the component database.
If P-A wants to limit his numbering to 3 digits- so be it...it is his decision, but I fail to see any logical reason for such limitations.....
3 digits i OK if its sufficient for the design- if it needs more digits- so be it! What the ******* is really the problem???
The 100, -200- 300 system for different channels -or functions- is widespread, but not a standard , as I can find- but it works... but 100 pcs of each comp.type is not a very large system! If it ends up with 1000-2000-3000 for a larger system - so what ??
Actually -any system is OK, as long as you do what any serious designer should do- mark the drawings properly and clearly tell the reader what you mean!!
One of the main reasons for the confusion (?) is the general american and part japanese "resistance" to conform to any international standard at all.. but with some experience we learn to "read the different languages" out there, as with a lot of other things... but I must admit I do have some problems from time to time with ISO logical symbols, -- mainly because I startede in the very early 70ies with the american symbols, and my bussiness is still overloaded with US designed equipment............. so there we are.....
There most probably is some standards, - whether it is ISO or IEEE, I really don't care....
The reality for most of us is that we are confined to the "standard" set by our CAD system, - and that is also the case for the vast masses of commercial diagrams found during at least the last 20 years or more.
In most CAD systems you can override the system, and label the components as you please, but for most systems this will probably muck up some internal routines for the component database.
If P-A wants to limit his numbering to 3 digits- so be it...it is his decision, but I fail to see any logical reason for such limitations.....
3 digits i OK if its sufficient for the design- if it needs more digits- so be it! What the ******* is really the problem???
The 100, -200- 300 system for different channels -or functions- is widespread, but not a standard , as I can find- but it works... but 100 pcs of each comp.type is not a very large system! If it ends up with 1000-2000-3000 for a larger system - so what ??
Actually -any system is OK, as long as you do what any serious designer should do- mark the drawings properly and clearly tell the reader what you mean!!
One of the main reasons for the confusion (?) is the general american and part japanese "resistance" to conform to any international standard at all.. but with some experience we learn to "read the different languages" out there, as with a lot of other things... but I must admit I do have some problems from time to time with ISO logical symbols, -- mainly because I startede in the very early 70ies with the american symbols, and my bussiness is still overloaded with US designed equipment............. so there we are.....
Herr, Norrman, this was only a simple question to begin with and I answer how I do so as long as you have to adjust (adopt?, what's the word?) yourself to anybody else you can do whatever you like. IN my case my cadprogram doesn't care at all what my names are. I can call them Greg2855 for resistors and "George Bush 34" for caps.
Hei igjen, svensken...
This was not at all meant as any attack on you.
Just as you say, we all do as we please, and as long as the system permits us.....
I usually start numbering at 1, - yes- just 1, and go on as long as I need to..... for multichannel things I ususally make one master drawing for the channel, and repeats this as a module.... just as we did way back then, when this were done by pencil and hand........
EDIT: Also worth mentioning-- my work never goes commercial-- only prototypes and small series ( geophysics instrumentation/ lab.work )
This was not at all meant as any attack on you.
Just as you say, we all do as we please, and as long as the system permits us.....
I usually start numbering at 1, - yes- just 1, and go on as long as I need to..... for multichannel things I ususally make one master drawing for the channel, and repeats this as a module.... just as we did way back then, when this were done by pencil and hand........
EDIT: Also worth mentioning-- my work never goes commercial-- only prototypes and small series ( geophysics instrumentation/ lab.work )
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.