100nF vs. 0.1uF

No, probably wouldn't work. Most programs get antsy when multiple pins have the same names, even ground, and I don't know for sure what capture would do with it.

Charlie

"Joel Koltner

You ASININE f*****ad.

....... Phil

In proper SI scientific notation, 2.2 uF is right. Hacked "electronic" notations, like 12K6, are tacky.

John

Tim

-- Deep Friar: a very philosophical monk. Website:

than

ar with

ing

F.

I've always used nF.

Leon

than

ar with

ing

F.

I grew up with 0.1uF and went over to 100nF as soon as I started seeing it on circuit diagrams.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Mea culpa - a slip of the finger.

Not here they aren't! I use software that allows you to draw symbols the way you want them.

After looking at hundreds of circuit diagrams in dozens of formats, I found that the 'T' junstion and gap combination worked best for me. It does mean avoiding any four-way junctions, but that isn't much of a problem.

I didn't like them when I first met them (about 50 years ago) but I find the logic of them outweighs the strangeness of their appearance. If they have to be printed on a small component, the 'continental' format is certainly a lot more readable in a small sapce - even if it does involve a certain amount of mental translation afterwards.

than

ar with

ing

F.

I'm among the "older". I don't use the nano for capacitors at all. I go from 1000pF to 0.01uF. I do use nH for inductors so it isn't that I don't use the nano at all.

I think it got started from the way that early makers of parts produced the parts. The ones down at a pf and up to about 1000pF were silver mica. Above that the technology switched. If you use uF and pF but not nF, the value tells you the about technology as well as the actual value.

er than

pular with

eering

he

I go straight across, I use dots for connected and I never allow more than three connected lines meet at one point. This means that even if the dot gets lost, you can see that it is connected and you can always know that two lines that cross are not a 4 way connect.

Someone once saw me doing the jog over at the joint of 4 wires asked about it and now also does that so I am obviously not th eonly person that thinks it is a good rule.

f,

pture

tion"

ure

In the old DOS Orcad, you could do stuff like that. Orcad capture reformats your hard drive[1] and burns out the monitor if it detects you trying that. Making a part with multiple pins with the same name produces a net-list with two nets hooked to the same pin and not all the same net name.

Every time I run Crapture it upsets my multi-monitor function and I have to reboot.

Wonder if a pin can be a "label"?

...Jim Thompson

Perhaps the reason is that the entire international standard for any schematic, whether hand drawn or computer drawn, is that an intersection is NOT a node unless a "node dot" is included.

In other words, it has been decades now that a simple intersection does NOT make a node.

Maybe that is why there are very few "packages" that would recognize the old, out-of-use, hand drawing style of placing a "loop" at a non-nodal intersection.

Nanofarad markings are still used, and CAD packages should ALL still recognize the moniker.

There are not many makers using it, but it is not an invalid designator.

Yes, and none of them are thru hole, dipshit. Also, if you have some that are 0603 or larger, they can be marked, you just have to know that they are, because it isn't readily visible.

However the draftsman marks them.

Schematic components NEVER "need" to be shaped like the part they represent.

None. Use some common sense. It breaks a very basic rule, and the app (NO APP) should ever allow it. Same goes for layout packages.

Try running it inside an emulator, like DOSBox or QEMU.

All the disk ceramics and all the polyester (mylar) in my inventory are marked "104". That's NOT the way I'd mark them on the schematic ... my choice is picofarads through 999, nanofarads through 999, and microfarads above. Haven't gotten around to millifarads yet, although by logic I should be using mF for 1000 uF and above.

Yes, I started out my first ten years in the biz using mickey-mikes for puffs.

Jim