Electronic drawing standards question

I've been looking at a lot of schematics over the last week and it looks like there is no agreed set of symbols that would constitute a standard. Or, some companies just choose to do things their way. So I was wondering if there is a stet of standards for symbols (and other aspects of electronic drafting) and how I can get a copy?

Thanks, Dave

Reply to
Dave Boland
Loading thread data ...

That's the great thing about standards: So many from which to choose.

formatting link
. ..

AKA "The logical solution" IMO.

formatting link
. ..

Another solution: Adopt one you think has esteem.

formatting link
formatting link

Reply to
JeffM

IEEE Std 315, "IEEE Standard Graphic Symbols for Electrical and Electronics Diagrams"

formatting link

Reply to
Matthew Kendall

IEEE Standard Graphic Symbols suck!

...Jim Thompson

--
|  James E.Thompson, P.E.                           |    mens     |
|  Analog Innovations, Inc.                         |     et      |
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Jim Thompson

The great committee solution, almost as useful as the EDIF "standard" ;-)

...Jim Thompson

--
|  James E.Thompson, P.E.                           |    mens     |
|  Analog Innovations, Inc.                         |     et      |
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Jim Thompson

They are a classic example of a solution searching in vain for a problem.

-Chuck

Reply to
Chuck Harris

My observation is that CAD companies try to make it all but impossible to transfer data between different tools.

...Jim Thompson

--
|  James E.Thompson, P.E.                           |    mens     |
|  Analog Innovations, Inc.                         |     et      |
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Jim Thompson

Except that EDIF could have been great if the committee had been competent. As it is, there are so many variations, that all follow the standard, that the interoperability they envisioned is all but impossible.

-Chuck

Reply to
Chuck Harris

You bet!

...Jim Thompson

--
|  James E.Thompson, P.E.                           |    mens     |
|  Analog Innovations, Inc.                         |     et      |
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Jim Thompson

Jim Thompson wrote: : My observation is that CAD companies try to make it all but impossible : to transfer data between different tools.

Did I just hear somebody make an argument for open-source EDA?

Stuart

Reply to
Stuart Brorson

I like the competition (and cross-pollination?) that is beginning:

formatting link

The *porting* thing is pretty cool too:

formatting link
formatting link
*-*--Unix-like-*+runs-on-*-OSX+author:Ales-Hvezda

Reply to
JeffM

The Logic Functions "standard" was what I was thinking of... really gross... totally non-intuitive!

...Jim Thompson

--
|  James E.Thompson, P.E.                           |    mens     |
|  Analog Innovations, Inc.                         |     et      |
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Jim Thompson

Are we talking about the same thing? IEEE 315 (-1975, and the 315A-1986 supplement) is the one with all the basic symbols; resistors (rectangle and zigzag are both allowed), capacitors, inductors, BJTs, FETs, vacuum tubes, etc.

In my experience most drawings follow this, but many get the details wrong for less common components such as thermal fuses, transducers, ganged switches, etc. It is handy to be able to look up the correct symbol for things one does not use often.

IEEE 315 also has a list of preferred reference designators, which is a handy thing to standardise on to maintain consistency between BOMs, purchasing systems and CAD systems.

On the other hand "IEEE Graphic Symbols for Logic Functions" is more controversial, and less widely used.

Reply to
Matthew Kendall

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.