I vote again for no junction dots!
I hear you but what alternatives are you offering. I am sure you are very knowledgeable in this area and I appreciate all the help. Like I said, I teach by trade. This is a hobby. There is a difference between instructing and teaching. I am open to suggestions. I am the student.
In my opinion, the male side should be Ref Des P1A; but my opinion was already ruled out over a year ago.
Again, explain why? I am a big boy. I can make decisions for myself. What does Ref Des P1B even mean?
If there is more than one way to do something, throw them all at me. I will make the decision in the end. Telling me something is wrong and then leaving me hanging does not benefit my cause or yours. Explain why you believe this is better.
US Military Avionics conventions since I was old enough to enlist and get away from parents control?
Okay I respect your background. Thank you for serving your country. Many of my family live in the US and some have served before and probably after you. Now, you know your stuff, explain it to me and donāt just tell me Iām wrong. I need to know the āwhyā Keep in mind that this is all new to me and you have been doing it for years. One of my first mistakes when I became a teacher was that I knew my trade really well, but didnāt realize how much I had to dial it back to make it understandable to my students. We all think on different levels and learn in different ways.
I think no one are wrong in the cause of J1B, P1Bā¦ is just a personal taste.
Like another thing, you donāt use and fix grid for wiring also it not wrong, but I would not do that, it would hurt you later for a larger design. Your case, not big deal. Most of kicad symbol are work perfectly with 100 grid, so wiring of from that giving you more issue when change symbols ā¦ pin will not align nicelyā¦
Not sure what you mean by this? What grid? What wire?
Iām have a felling that we are not on the same page after we read KiCad manual. So iām not going to be helpfull.
I am sorry you feel that way. I am just trying to understand what you are referring to? All you have to do is tell me and I will figure it out.
Grid: http://docs.kicad.org/stable/en/eeschema.html#_grid
Wrie: http://docs.kicad.org/stable/en/eeschema.html#wires-buses-labels-power-ports
What happened to the thread.?
Thank you nhatkhai. I will check it out and get back to you.
I agree - net names crossed by wire gets no readabe.
But if you are saying about crossing wires and some crosses with dots and some with not I would not agree. I am using this many times and see no problem in it. It may be a problem but I think only in some cases. When drawing schematic I think you know if in that place it can be a problem or not.
Some examples from my schematics (not KiCad yet) where among crossed wires some crosses are dotted and some not and I see no problem in uderstanding the schematic:
Me too.
I think it is good to use buses. If you have say 5 wires to go from left side of schematic to right. Then you enter them into one bus (nameing each wire) then go with bus to the right ant then anter to the bus their ends (nameing them). Bus is only a graphic element but showes you wen to look for the other wires with the same names.
I didnāt read the rest of your thread yet, but I think at that moment you have too many labels. If there is a wire which you can easily follow what it connects there is no need to name it and allow KiCad to give it any name he likes (he had to name it to make a net for PCB). But if it is in some way special wire - for example the only one on PCB to curry 2A then giving it your name would help to identify it while routing PCB.
I am doing PCBs where for me 0.5A in track is high current. When I see somewhere here 15A I began to fear 
Like previously - too long thread to read all and then answer. So may be I am writeing something which was just explained later.
Standard way is to let KiCad annotate you schematic automatically - so you need not to think if that name was used anywhere else on the schematic (menu: Tools|Annotateā¦).
For parts containg only one part (later be explained) KiCad just adds numer to letter identyfying part so you gest part names like J3, R5, R235.
But there are parts which in one contain few the same parts (standard example would be integrated circuit 7400 containing 4 NAND gates in it). At schematic it is more readable to put each gate at place its functionality is needed but at PCB they are all the part of one footprint. Such parts KiCad names with numer and letter (in this example it would be A,B,C,D). This way each gate gest its exact pins in IC. When during PCB routing you find that if gates would be in different order then routing would be easier then you go back to schematic and manually change for example B with D.
After annotation your connectors would not have names ending with B and it is the source of confusion because for us it looks like you have a connector which really will have two parts in it to be put at PCB.
1 Like
During your battle I was sleaping (time difference). I understand your frustration and donāt understand why noone was enough polite to explain you what the battle is about.
I have once in my life (I think about 1992) seen a schematic of mechanical telephone exchange. Many, many horizontal and vertical lines crossing on paper of table size and many such papers. If there at some crossings would be a dot and on others not then:
- it is easy to overlook one,
- some dirt left by fly can change schematic
But if you decide that crossing with dot is not allowed then each such place you have to do for example that horizontal line is one but vertical up and down goes with a little shift. Then if you use dots at that (3 line points) or not the schematic canāt be understand wrongly. @Sprig is used to that solution and without dots ! and he follows some Avionics convention. I can imagine that after one airline disaster someone could find that one of the reasons (there are never one reason) was error in reading of airplane schematic (imagine how complicated it can be) because paper was fold such way that horizontal and vertical fold were just at one wire crossing and was enough damaged to be source of error and the conclusion was - such schematics are not allowed in avionics. And I have nothing against.
But if I see vertical line touching horizontal one and no dot at touching point I fill something is wrong - someone was drawing the line, break for moment (telefone call) and forgot to finish his work as I see line ended with no conection to anything.
May be after some disaster in feature the standard will be changed to:
- not crossing wires with dot at cross,
- all connections marked by dot.
Who knows
2 Likes
Thank you Piotr for taking the time to explain some of the concepts here. This is a little overwhelming and I am sure I am asking a lot of ādumbā questions and making a lot of mistakes, but I am hoping to see this through. It is easy to point out mistakes in ones work, I am looking for the why so I donāt do it again and it actually makes sense to me.
So I will ask again and I hope it isnāt too much. What do I need to do to get this to the next step? Remove the labels, move my 4-way junctions to 3-way, change my connector names, annotate connector namesā¦Let me have it. I am ready.