Better than Fritzing?

Knocking up a little project, so I need a schematic.

Any comments on this style?

Allan

hotair.pdf (26.5 KB)

Good start.

Colour selection for internet is not great.

Try to make things readable as below:

Outputs.jpg

allanhurst:
Knocking up a little project, so I need a schematic.

Any comments on this style?

Allan

It's novel and logical, but a bit cryptic. The vertical lines represent devices and components. There's got to be an ideal application for this style. Space saving? Maybe print it right on the back of circuit boards?

op's diagram:

LarryD : your version is of course very legible, and perfectly conventional.

But I thought I'd try something a bit different.

I've been wiring up a Ford Mk1 Escort RS2000 rally car for a friend for the past couple of days, - car electrical diagrams are abominable!

Allan

I see two or three 18v inputs on the diagram. It would be nice if they could be on a common bus like Vin - but maybe that would make the diagram too messy.

If a common bus is not an option I would like to see a very obvious symbol the represents the 18v inputs so you can identify them without needing to read the text. (In the same way that the GND symbol is obvious).

...R

Robin2:
...
If a common bus is not an option I would like to see a very obvious symbol the represents the 18v inputs so you can identify them without needing to read the text. (In the same way that the GND symbol is obvious).

...R

That was my thought too. Something like this:

This is more what I have in mind

Connection.jpg

...R

Connection.jpg

Thank you for your helpful criticisms, gentlemen.

I'm not trying to change the electronics world, but maybe abstract a little more - an arduino or shield etc may actually be rectangular - or indeed any shape physically - but for schematic purposes they needn't be portrayed that way.

We've ( I hope ) advanced beyond the direct physical representation of a circuit as in Fritzing which in my view obscures rather than makes clear the concepts.

Clarity/legibility is all.

Note a convention : all inputs on the left, outputs on the right. Helps visualising flow, I hope.

I'll make a modified version of my schematic incorporating your ideas, and a couple more of my own.

Ongoing.

Allan

ps I don't expect it'll get to an IEE or IEEE standard! But worse things have - remember the box-like standard
for logic symbols rather than the well-known AND, OR, EXOR etc shapes? Died years ago, thank goodness.

Another thought ...

I don't create schematics for my own limited stuff - except perhaps paper and pencil. Anything I have made so far has been on stripboard (Veroboard) and I found a program called DIYLC that allows me to do a "CAD" design for the stripboard layout.

For people you are making a proper schematic it seems to me that the ability to use it as an input to a program that can generate a PCB design would be important. That seems to rule out newfangled personal design styles.

...R

I like to make schematics of my projects into art:

I think your new style Allan is very artsy.

"I'm not trying to change the electronics world, but maybe abstract a little more"

I cannot stress enough that you should stick with industry standardized and understood schematics.
Not only are they universally accepted, they can de used in automated circuit anlayisis, used to create files for PCB manufacturing etc.
Smarter people than me or you have spent years and years on this.

Any benefits you think you might achieve is just a waste of time and effort.

Suggest you spend your energy on sticking with or learning the standards.

IMHO

I cannot stress enough that you should stick with industry standardized and understood schematics.

Quite, Grandma.

I spent many years doing exactly that, and pushed many products through manufacturing - some in the millions.

But this is just a personal hack - a sort of aide-memoir to prototyping. A curiosity, perhaps.

If the gadget's successful enough to be worth making in bulk I'll go the normal route. And it won't use an Arduino.

Allan

Maybe use ‘net’ names to clean things up.

Eg.

2018-07-21_16-20-39.jpg

larryd:
Maybe use ‘net’ names to clean things up.

Eg.

2018-07-21_16-20-39.jpg

[soapbox]
No… No… No… thats almost a full search-a-word schematic, where every pin has a net name and no drawn connection, absolutely hopeless.
If you want to follow a connection you have to find ALL pins with a certain net name, how do you know you have found them all?
Draw wires you lazy people, take a bit of time to make your schematics legible. and logical power and signal flow-wise.
[soapbox/]
Industrial schematics use netnames, but the names also include page/grid info as to where other conections are located.
eg a net name like MISO(34C3, 34d5, 21A1) page 34 grid C3, this notation showing that this point MISO has 3 other connections
@allanhurst, I like your concept as a starting diagram, editing as you place components, it can then be transformed into a proper schematic when you get the layout finished.
Tom… :slight_smile:

TomGeorge:
[soapbox]
No.. No.. No... thats almost a full search-a-word schematic, where every pin has a net name and no drawn connection, absolutely hopeless.
If you want to follow a connection you have to find ALL pins with a certain net name, how do you know you have found them all?

Tom..... :slight_smile:

That's what a highlighter is for :wink:

TomGeorge:
[soapbox]
No… No… No…
Tom… :slight_smile:

Well I too like lines . . .

2018-07-21_22-01-46.jpg

larryd:
That's what a highlighter is for :wink:

But you have to play search-a-word first to find when to use the highlighter ... :o :o :o

Buses are supposed to be used to keep things manageable.

You are kinda preaching to the choir.