What is this symbol in schematic?

At a guess, a solder bridge option jumper, or just a std jumper…

1 Like

Yes, GS is a solder bridge.
AFAIK it is originates from the French words for solder bridge/jumper…

It is an unusual schematic symbol, it looks more like a footprint. With the limited context we have been given in which the symbol is used we can only assume that “CS” is a chip select and therefore it would make sense that the author of the schematic intended the symbol to be some form of jumper. There are far more appropriate symbols that could have been used if that is the case.


Well, GS is French for “Pontet Goutte de soudure”, and is located in the conn.lib schematc library and in the Connect.pretty footprint library.

It has been there for many years already!

Yes, that is the description for the footprint although “pontet de souder” would make a little more sense and therefore “PS” would be the expected identifier. But you are correct, I was not expecting “goutte”. I apologize for my comment.

1 Like

Here is what I used recently. It certainly doesn’t look elegant, but I think there is very little room for ambiguity or individual interpretation. On the other hand . . . there’s room for improvement, since I use the same symbol for short wires soldered to pads, or pin headers with pins shorted by those little clips. (You know, the ones that fall into the absolutely least accessible area of a chassis when you’re trying to configure some feature on a motherboard.)

<a class=“attachment” href="//kicad-info.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/original

/2X/6/68352b8dc08e44a51ad5aeb931d01f07ae065735.lib">Jumpers.lib (2.6 KB)


My version…

To me this is the more “standard” symbol used for solder bridges, but I have also seen this symbol, as well as the one posted by the OP, used for spark gaps even though there is a more appropriate symbol for spark gaps. Having said that, I still don’t like them. :slight_smile: They are too much like a footprint and imply which footprint will actually be used which is fine if that is your intention. I prefer the less restrictive symbols such as the symbols in Dale’s example or the symbols that show a loop of wire connecting two of the terminals. When laying out the board I can then choose a footprint that allows me to use an SMT shorting block (0 ohm resistor), a pin array for shorting blocks, or even DIP switches. Solder bridges are not well suited for automated assembly and during development/testing I like to be able to change “jumpers” without having to get out the soldering iron each time so I tend to use DIP switches or shorting blocks switching to SMT shorting blocks in production. If the jumper is for a setting that the end user may need to change then I usually use a DIP switch but I will also change the schematic to a switch to express this.

Disclaimer: The statements above reflect my personal preference and as such should not be interpreted as suggesting this is the best/better/only/correct way. :slight_smile:

Ah sorry, didn’t mention it, I run local DIY symbols+footprints as atomic parts.
For me the symbol has already all the information needed to go without CVpcb.
That’s probably why I made them look similar to the end result.
If I would use a pin header jumper or a dip switch it would look different.

PS: I like the new you = pleasant encounters, even if they drip of sarcasm a little bit :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye: