Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!diablo1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Edward Rawde" <invalid@invalid.invalid>
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Re: LT Spice looks
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2024 21:18:49 -0500
Organization: BWH Usenet Archive (https://usenet.blueworldhosting.com)
Lines: 192
Message-ID: <vh3mmb$2334$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
References: <lms7jjt1dcip58omf55gasri887067v0ci@4ax.com> <ol99jj971phq17bt1p7ng55a65kbelj10a@4ax.com> <33h9jjhk0tb3vm31r4fatp265q3dt22mem@4ax.com> <vh2jvn$20fa$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> <0ul9jj906v7pungdbs1u82mrqel9lv7tlr@4ax.com> <vh2m3d$p59$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> <nbr9jj5rkdrs81tgi1iv2ar8p1f9klu084@4ax.com> <vh2tgq$lab$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> <aq7ajj59feghbv9cbdr5ip42ffqlbtl607@4ax.com> <vh38n4$8tn$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> <15fajjdaci5k28sjc5c93da5p78ji0h8on@4ax.com>
Injection-Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2024 02:18:51 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com;
	logging-data="68708"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blueworldhosting.com"
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ID+r5BEcS0lj1qQK8HSxC/ZFvRw= sha256:ohnZkPjk6cOAUrSFWkW0utalTDKpNp7kiChEM/x4RzA=
	sha1:e5qkstuJFW+lHqDxjImD7zIzIwc= sha256:HdeYAPTAYPJx/DAOeMRq5RKvlq/Fgo2n/0FoMg5E2tw=
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157
X-Priority: 3
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
Bytes: 10204

"john larkin" <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote in message news:15fajjdaci5k28sjc5c93da5p78ji0h8on@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 17:20:20 -0500, "Edward Rawde"
> <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>>"john larkin" <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote in message news:aq7ajj59feghbv9cbdr5ip42ffqlbtl607@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 14:09:14 -0500, "Edward Rawde"
>>> <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"john larkin" <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote in message news:nbr9jj5rkdrs81tgi1iv2ar8p1f9klu084@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 12:02:36 -0500, "Edward Rawde"
>>>>> <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>"john larkin" <JL@gct.com> wrote in message news:0ul9jj906v7pungdbs1u82mrqel9lv7tlr@4ax.com...
>>>>>>> On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 11:26:30 -0500, "Edward Rawde"
>>>>>>> <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"john larkin" <JL@gct.com> wrote in message news:33h9jjhk0tb3vm31r4fatp265q3dt22mem@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 08:17:31 -0500, legg <legg@nospam.magma.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 12 Nov 2024 16:30:44 -0800, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>
>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Have you noticed that an LT Spice schematic looks different if you
>>>>>>>>>>>open it on different computers? The fonts seem to change.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Picture is worth a thousand words here.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Different ?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>RL
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Mostly fonts. Some can come from different settings, but even with the
>>>>>>>>> same settings things are weird.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As one zooms in and out, font scaling does not track graphic scaling.
>>>>>>>>> Try it. The length of strings jumps around. So if you make something
>>>>>>>>> look good at some zoom level, it gets ugly at others, like text
>>>>>>>>> overlapping parts and such.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>It's always done that since I've been using it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And there are different grids for parts and lines and for different
>>>>>>>>> kinds of text. So it's hard to keep stuff aligned.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> All that makes it hard to draw a neat schematic.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I've worked in plenty of places where you didn't get to draw your own schematic so you just had to deal with the fact that
>>>>>>>>although
>>>>>>>>it produced a correct netlist it didn't look anything like what you'd have drawn yourself.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I believe that a beautiful schematic, for simulation or for a real
>>>>>>>>> PCB, works better than an ugly schematic.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I see real horrors posted here, and elsewhere.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>If the netlist and PCB layout is correct then why waste time on making the schematic look like you want it, only to be told 
>>>>>>>>by
>>>>>>>>someone else that they would have drawn it completely differently?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The time spent making a schematic look good is essentially another
>>>>>>> design review, more eyeball time on the problem.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>A good engineer will do that anyway, but it doesn't necessarily mean that the design will look good to someone else.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And who dares to order a design engineer to change his schematic?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>LOL some of the managers I've worked for.
>>>>>>And drawing office people who weren't going to let you use your own logic symbols or other symbols.
>>>>>
>>>>> I remember long ago when we had draftsmen who took sketches and drew
>>>>> schematics on paper, with straight lines. Some of their stuff was ugly
>>>>> too.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now, most engineers enter schematics themselves. All the logic symbols
>>>>> come out of a company-shared library.
>>>>>
>>>>> I still like to start with a D-size pencil-on-paper schematic, partly
>>>>> because I don't need to use library parts at the early stage of
>>>>> design.
>>>>
>>>>I sometimes draw parts of a circuit on paper, usually when I want to calculate something or sketch/brainstorm something, but I
>>>>haven't drawn a full schematic on paper directly myself since somewhere around 1988.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, I do insist that my engineers treat a Spice schematic like a
>>>>>>> real document, with proper title block, author, date revision control.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The sloppy software hacking mentality is terrible when applied to
>>>>>>> hardware design.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>But not long ago you were agreeing with me about trying things out, either in your mind or as an experimental prototype.
>>>>>>Isn't that just like trying things out in software?
>>>>>
>>>>> Simulations, sketches, brainstorming, breadboards are quick and easy,
>>>>> and encourage people to think and change their minds. But
>>>>> production-quality multilayer PC boards are not the most efficient way
>>>>> to experiment.
>>>>
>>>>Ok so the question is when do you switch from Simulations, sketches, brainstorming etc to revision control?
>>>>The schematics people post here are not usually under revision control so they don't need "proper title block, author, date
>>>>revision
>>>>control."
>>>>I can think of no reason why anyone would get upset about the absence of this information on such a schematic.
>>>
>>> It answers the questions     What the hell is this?    Who did this?
>>>
>>> A few years later, it's best to know this stuff.
>>
>>Once it's in my filing system it will probably never be seen again.
>
> Never see the Spice model again? That certainly reduces the
> documentation requirements.
>
> Around here, even whiteboard sketches are titled and dated and
> photographed and archived in a project folder.

If I worked in whiteboard marketing I'd certainly push that as a must have.
Must be more than 30 years ago when I first saw a whiteboard which could put it all on paper.
I'm not sure what happened to the papers. They were likely filed and...

I'm sure they would have had such a whiteboard here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
But the issue there is that the engineer, Anderson, should not have been invited to the meeting at all.

>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>One place I worked tried to get to just two PCB iterations before production.
>>>>>
>>>>> Our goal is one: sell rev A.
>>>>>
>>>>>>My comment at the time was that software should also be told that they can only compile it twice.
>>>>>
>>>>> When we worked on paper, with punched tape or cards, we'd actually
>>>>> READ our code before we assembled and ran. I wrote one RTOS while
>>>>> visiting a friend in Juneau Alaska and mailed hand-written pages back
>>>>> to the home office to be punched and assembed and tested. It had one
>>>>> bug.
>>>>
>>>>When I first wrote some code which was going to be run for me, the form I filled in was taken elsewhere and manually transferred
>>>>to
>>>>punch cards which were then fed into the computer which I never saw. The output was returned to me on paper. A transcription 
>>>>error
>>>>caused my first program to fail.
>>>>It was clear to me at the time that if only I could have my own computer to see the output immediately then I could run, test,
>>>>run,
>>>>test, experiment, run test and eventually arrive at a program I was happy with.
>>>>
>>>>When I actually got a computer which could run my own code I had to put the kit together myself and enter the code bytes myself.
>>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MK14
>>>>One thing which was immediately apparent was that one little mistake in the code would turn it into a program which randomly
>>>>rewrote
>>>>itself and then you'd have to enter it all again. I got as far as being able to save a program on a reel-reel tape recorder.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> The easier it is to run something, the less checking will be done, and
>>> the more bugs there will be. Bridges and buildings and airplanes get
>>> checked before they are built so have less bugs than Windows.
>>
>>You might want to talk to Boeing about that.
>
> The door plug blowout was a field assembly error. Required parts
> weren't installed.
>
>
>>Not to mention
>>https://www.google.com/search?q=florida+university+bridge+collapse
>>Or
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========