It looks good to me.

Does it stay invite only? (I think this is a good idea BTW). I would assume everyone could see it, which is the point.

I think it will match what I was thinking about nicely.

 

It looks good to me.

Does it stay invite only? (I think this is a good idea BTW). I would assume everyone could see it, which is the point.

I think it will match what I was thinking about nicely.

Yes, the current implementation is invite only, the other options basically make it open to every member to post directly. It could be implemented open to all members and have circuits moderated and approved before going on the site (there are benefit and drawbacks of each method). This is open to debate.

As for viewing the current implementation is open access to members only, however it could be changed to be accessible to all members and visitors to the forums. Again this is open to debate.

There several other things I want to trial with the SG feature and obviously it needs naming appropriately. I will have more of a play around with this and have a muse over this further. One of the things that needs doing is making an appropriate number of inclusive sections; not too many that it becomes over facing, but not too little that the interpretation of which category makes it difficult to choose.

I like this idea in principle, and it has been floated several times previously by members here who want a central circuits resource. Whether we can implement something like this so that it takes off is a whole other thing.

Comments from all members are welcome on this of course.

Dave

 

I'm onboard with this.. I've always struggled with 'proper' interfacing of circuit elements, and that is looking like it could be a no BS, semi-advanced fundamentals resource..
Its really a pain when you need to scour ridiculously large numbers of random projects in search of a good example of a fundamental that could be employed in your own project.. Thats why I've always loved datasheets with example circuits.. The guys who write those up are much less likely to provide a 'wrong way' approach..
I'd suggest that those forums be policed with vigor.. Let those who really know their stuff be as blunt as necessary with those who post 'wrong way' approaches.. Then everybody will be better off, even if a couple ppl feel insulted..

 

What about "proven" versus "idea" circuits? Would we want to limit the "cookbook" group to things we've actually breadboarded instead of opening it to simulations?

Would there perhaps be two groups? One for "this should work," and another for "this actually worked?"

 

As long as the distinction is made I wouldn't have heartburn with it. There is a difference between theory and practice. A proven design is one that trumps theory, though if there is a conflict someone is overlooking something. By referencing the larger forums deeper explinations can be forthcomming.

 

Dave,

Don Lancaster back in the late 70s had a book titled "CMOS Cookbook". The chapters took you through the basics and had alot of circuits. It's packed away right now, but I can dig it out.

What did you want from the AOE book? There is also the student's workbook that accompanies the AOE textbook. Personally, if you attribute the source, I don't think there are copyright issues. It would be a nightmare to try and track down each schematic on the internet. I'm sure there are plenty of "copies" out there on the internet without proper attributes.

Once it's pointed out there maybe a copyright violation, and I'm sure the accuser will provide a source, if you can make the posting invisible till the original poster can properly cite the circuit, or remove the circuit if necessary. I suspect there will be more removals for lack of response if it's an open (posting) area.

 

Thanks for the input Joe.

I haven't come across Don Lancaster book, but I assume it is a cookbook in mould that Bill and recca02 pointed out before. From looking at my copy of AOE, the cookbook idea is similar to "Circuit Ideas" sections throughout the book.

You raise a good point about copyright violations. Like the forums we would require that the members who post circuits/designs do so by providing the appropriate attributes where applicable. As is the case with the forums, where the source is not quoted it is licensed under the Creative Commons Public Domain License.

Vetting individual designs would be unmanageable. Therefore the way I see around this is, if applicable ask for sources to be cited, otherwise the work is licensed under the above CC license. If there is a violation, i.e. the original copyright holder feels they have not had appropriate credit given, then they are free to contact the site admin and request that either appropriate credit is given, or the content be removed.

We can tread eggshells on this, but if we are realistic about it, we need to consider a fair and practical solution. By having a cookbook open only to senior members we hope to mitigate any issues in this regard.

I will pick up this over the weekend and gauge possible interest in such a circuit repository, and we can (possibly) move forward. There are a few other issues raised earlier in this thread which will need addressing, but this will form part of the review process for this idea.

Dave