Horowitz and Hill has a categorization in its T.O.C. that might have some helpful additions. It might help to subdivide digital. Some possibilities:
Op-Amps
In-Amps
Combinational logic
Sequential logic (or just "Logic" for both)
One-shots
Counters
Power Supplies (AC/DC)
DC/DC converters
Triac/SCR (because we have so many questios related to them)

John

 

Found it...

http://forum.allaboutcircuits.com/showthread.php?t=13098

The conclusion of this thread...

1. 555/556 Circuits
2. Digital Clocks/Timers
3. Audio Amps and Oscillators
4. Instrumentation and Test Equipment
5. PICs, Micro-controllers, CPUs
6. Recievers, Transmitters, and Antennas
7. Video and Display Circuits
8. PWM and Motor Controllers
9. Buck and Boost Converters
10. Power Supplies, Inverters, and Battery Chargers
11. Sensors and Transducers
12. Miscellaneous

 

So how would you merge the two sets? I'd like to make the list both comprehensive and as short as possible. To some extent these are in conflict, so some middle ground would be met.

Having worked with it for a while I think Rule one would be better with the following changes.

Old:
1. All circuits must be verified, either personally (preferred) or elsewhere on the net. These circuits must work. Links to sources in the captions is recommended.

New:
1. All circuits should be verified, either personally or elsewhere on the net. These circuits must work. Links to sources in the captions is recommended.


Reason:
I tend to free hand a lot. There are a lot of circuits I draw that I have a 99% confidence of working, mostly because they are derivatives of older work. The other reason is there is a lot of circuits I've built over 20 years ago. They were tested, but I've lost the work one way or another. The statement "These circuits must work." coupled with rules 2 and 6 should cover it.

So the current rules will read (with the understanding Rule 6 is there because it is my personal album, and would be changed for a global setting)...

Rules:

1. All circuits should be verified, either personally or elsewhere on the net. These circuits must work. Links to sources in the captions is recommended.

2. Any circuit that has a credible challenge will be removed or modified. For this reason it is highly recommended no direct links to an image is made on the forums, they should be reposted in a forum post as an attachment.

3. All entries must have a caption or a link in the caption to a web location with a description, and there must be a descriptive title in the caption. A parts list is also required, although it can be part of the designations or in the link.

4. Redrawn schematics are acceptable, as are legible scanned pictures of schematics. Legibility and accuracy is a must.

5. If entries are suggested by non invited members they should be made in the Projects Collection forum.

6. I am the arbiter of what is acceptable. If a entry is challenged it will be discussed in the General Electronics Chat or The Projects Forum, not the Feedback and Suggestions.


What do you think?

I've come across another problem with using the albums, one I did not expect. You can not link or hypertext within the captions. You just have to spell the whole link out so the user can use cut and paste.

I've started captioning my entries in my album for context. Rule 2 is now my personal policy. I've tried to search for links, so far no luck, the text is too long.

 

Bill, the verification process can be incorporated into the forums. For each entry it would be desirable for comments to be posted so that people can vet the designs - almost like an open-source concept applied to circuit designs. The author naturally should have confidence of the suitability of the design. Let me look at the details of the rules you have outlined.

As for merging the sets - less is better at this time - until such a point that there is a sufficient catalogue of circuits. This is very much an experimental concept, so there is no prescribed format at this stage. I would even be happy for the categories to follow the simple and general structure of the e-book volumes (i.e. DC, AC, Semiconductor, Digital, Reference). It might tie-in better with the site this way.

Dave

 

You're the boss on this one.

I've already found with limited experimentation that the rules will have to morph, so at this point I'm laying some limited groundwork, or trying to.

I also believe that some of what I'm doing may be worth incorporating into whatever system we come up with. I'm not clear as to your personal concept of what it will look like (but I am OK with that).

If you see something I can change in my area that has any larger application please suggest it so we can see how it will work out.

Personal note: I am a bit of a control freak, and while I don't see it in myself I'm told I'm a perfectionist at work. I've already left my mark here at this site because I have found I like to draw circuits. Lots of the stuff I draw doesn't work, but then, some of it does. It also allows me to be a tech writer. How cool is that?

 

You're the boss on this one.

I've already found with limited experimentation that the rules will have to morph, so at this point I'm laying some limited groundwork, or trying to.

I also believe that some of what I'm doing may be worth incorporating into whatever system we come up with. I'm not clear as to your personal concept of what it will look like (but I am OK with that).

You are not the only one! Seriously, the initial implementation had too many issues, however I will raise with Rob another avenue I have been looking at and we can see if that works. At the minute, the default set-up doesn't offer anything in the way of a suitable (let alone ideal) solution.

I think the first thing we need to agree on is the categories, and I commend that we use the model I proposed above based around the e-book volumes, which is sufficiently general, inclusive, and consistent with the main site.

If you see something I can change in my area that has any larger application please suggest it so we can see how it will work out.

Personal note: I am a bit of a control freak, and while I don't see it in myself I'm told I'm a perfectionist at work. I've already left my mark here at this site because I have found I like to draw circuits. Lots of the stuff I draw doesn't work, but then, some of it does. It also allows me to be a tech writer. How cool is that?

What you have done thus far will act as the guts of the project, however the framework and implementation is what is the sticking point.

Dave

 

I think some ICs, such as the 555, deserve special attention. Overall it will improve the quality of the book, since they are so available internationally, and are such a staple for experiments and hobbiests. They seem to find their way into a lot of commercial applications too.

We'll never compete with some other books out there, such as IC Timer Cookbook, by Walter G. Jung, but I feel they (the chips, not the book) need some mention. I mentioned this book because it was one of my bibles learning this stuff.

 

New:
1. All circuits should be verified, either personally or elsewhere on the net. These circuits must work. Links to sources in the captions is recommended.

Perhaps, I put more weight on the need for verification than others do. For example, according to the modified rule, a Stanly Meiyers resonant hydrolysis circuit would qualify, since plenty of postings on the Internet claim it works.

The real value in a cookbook section that I see, as opposed to the current projects forum, is that the circuits have been verified to work. Finding a circuit on the Internet to do whatever one wants to do is easy. We all know that not all of them work. In fact, I still think that the person who verifies a circuit should be listed by name on the entry.

Finally, the word "should" really doesn't belong in any rule in the context of it being an option. If it is an option, then the rule becomes a suggestion.

John

 

Perhaps, I put more weight on the need for verification than others do. For example, according to the modified rule, a Stanley Meiyers resonant hydrolysis circuit would qualify, since plenty of postings on the Internet claim it works.

The real value in a cookbook section that I see, as opposed to the current projects forum, is that the circuits have been verified to work. Finding a circuit on the Internet to do whatever one wants to do is easy. We all know that not all of them work. In fact, I still think that the person who verifies a circuit should be listed by name on the entry.

Finally, the word "should" really doesn't belong in any rule in the context of it being an option. If it is an option, then the rule becomes a suggestion.

John

See Rule 2 and 6, they cover this. Basically I want to leave myself an out for all the 555 circuits I draw. There is no way I could build everything I draw.

So put it back, put my images up, and live with it?

I have remained curiously unconvinced by the HH0 people, and to those people, this is not an invitation to start the debate on this thread.