I understand if this may very well be the dumbest question ever posted on this forum but I'm new to the world of electronics and I have a problem. I have issues converting the schematics from engineering schematics to textbook schematics and vice versa.
Like in this image: http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=23ih2yp&s=5#.UsffYftYgtA

Please explain what are the rules to be used when converting and help me if you can with these circuits:

1. Conver this from textbook schematics to engineering schematics:
http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=3006xwk&s=5#.UsffxPtYgtA

2. Convert this from engineering schematics to textbook schematics:
http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=2dkmqrk&s=5#.UsfgAPtYgtA

Thank you for reading.

 

I understand if this may very well be the dumbest question ever posted on this forum but I'm new to the world of electronics and I have a problem. I have issues converting the schematics from engineering schematics to textbook schematics and vice versa.
Like in this image: http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=23ih2yp&s=5#.UsffYftYgtA

Please explain what are the rules to be used when converting and help me if you can with these circuits:

1. Conver this from textbook schematics to engineering schematics:
http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=3006xwk&s=5#.UsffxPtYgtA

2. Convert this from engineering schematics to textbook schematics:
http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=2dkmqrk&s=5#.UsfgAPtYgtA

Thank you for reading.

One Major difference between Text Book Schematics and Engineering Schematic is that in Engineering Schematics, the "other" end of a Source (voltage, current, signal) or Load is "Ground" and is to be presumed. In a Text Book Schematic, this "Ground" is Drawn.

There are a lot more "Assumptions" that is inherent in Engineering, whereas in a Text Book, there are no Assumptions - everything is Specific.

Ramesh

 

Presumably an engineering schematic is used in the production of a final product.
Engineering schematics should show the true nature of the common connections.
By indicating every common by the Earth Ground symbol can lead to confusion.
There are several means of indicating the true nature of common connections, IMO, in an engineering schematic the only time an earth ground symbol should be used is if in fact it is connected to actual earth ground.
There are many examples of various standards set out by official bodies, from JIC to NFPA79 etc.
Max.

 

Ok, excellent points but can you give me an example? Like get one of the schematics I have posted and transform it, from engineering to textbook or vice-versa.

 

Text Book Schematics and Engineering Schematics? WOW.

For the exercises:

If i have to do those exercises, the tip I consider is to separate the source in one voltage terminal with the value of the source (If it is a positive value i put it on top, if not on bottom) and one ground terminal. And viceversa.

 

I must confess that I do not completely understand the background and the reason for the question.
Is there always a fundamental difference between "textbook" and "engineering" schematics ?
I know a lot of textbooks that contain drawings which I - as somebody with an engineering education - consider as "engineering"-like.
OK - sometimes we see in textbooks "small-signal" equivalent drawings with artificial elements (VCCS, CCVS,..). However, everybody who is able to understand the meaning of these drawings should have no problems with it. In particular, these artificial products are no circuit diagrams.
So - what is the problem?

EDIT: In summary, we have signal flow diagrams, functional block diagrams, circuit diagrams and small-signal equivalent circuit diagrams (forgot something?). And all of them are used by engineers and also appear in textbooks. Thus, what is the difference?

 

I must confess that I do not completely understand the background and the reason for the question

I don't know what's so hard to understand I will put it as simple as I can. If you still can't understand why I asked this question...well...you should worry.

1. There are textbook schematics and engineering schematics(if you do not know what they are I have uploaded a photo).
2. I'm fresh out of highschool where I have only worked with textbook schematics(again, see photo if you do not know what I'm talking about) so now I have problems when I stumble across engineering schematics.

So therefore, the reason of my question would be that I need to know how to work with engineering schematics. That's why I provided that list and if someone would convert 2 or 3 models(from the ones I provided in the initial post) so I can see how it's done I would understand.

 

Cantafford--

This is the homework forum, and based on your posts I can only assume you are trying to get us to do your homework for you. That will not happen. You need to show us your previous attempts first, and then we can proceed to point out any errors. Please DO NOT ask for us to just give you the answers.

 

Ok, excellent points but can you give me an example? Like get one of the schematics I have posted and transform it, from engineering to textbook or vice-versa.

As well as indicating the true nature of the common connections, i.e. using symbols such as Chassis symbol that also may indicate two or more circuits with chassis commons isolated from each other.
The other thing that comes to mind in describing an engineering schematic could be the physical layout and wiring of a project, rather than the theoretical schematic diagram.
It is not really defined as to what final result is required?
Personally I see very little distinction between the examples in your links.
The only one that seems self evident is one has symbolic power source and the other actual power bus defined differently.
Max.

 

I don't know what's so hard to understand I will put it as simple as I can. If you still can't understand why I asked this question...well...you should worry.

It is hard to understand because it hardly makes sense. Do not be so condescending when you are the one failing to explain yourself - we are the ones you are asking help from, after all.

It may also not make sense because there isn't much of a difference between them. In the textbook problems, the sources are explicitly shown, whereas your "engineering" circuits are shown with assumed sources and grounds and a preference for more vertical circuit layouts (I'm curious where you got this task from).

Try writing the equations for each circuit and compare them.

 

Now Now Cantafford, I can not see that anyone have done something out of line here. However now that I understand your question better. I would say drawing good schematics is kind of art. It is more easy to mess up a schematic than drawing a good one. And to get a schematic easy to understand it most often has to undergo several revisions. I did a search on Google and some of the hits had some value https://www.google.com/search?q=good+schematic+design
Take a look at the first pages on the latter search. Then feel free to ask if you need more help.

 

2. I'm fresh out of highschool where I have only worked with textbook schematics(again, see photo if you do not know what I'm talking about) so now I have problems when I stumble across engineering schematics.

And, from your other thread I presume you are now studying some form of engineering.

I wish you well.

One subject you will (eventually) cover will be the relevant drawing standards for your country.

Engineering standards are written so that people in business can communicate.

In the UK we have British Standards, which are now being incorporated into European Standards as we harmonize everything in the EU.

The Americans hav ANSI standards, the Jananese have JEDEC

and so on.

These spell out information that should be provided, methods of presentation, standard symbols and so on to enable users to use designer information.

This should be on your course somewhere.

You will also find a great deal of useful information in handbooks published by various organisations such as the Radio Society of Great Britain (RSGB) or America, many manufacturers produce both application notes and dedicated book(let)s.

There were certainly many of these in my college library, you should become familiar with such sources. it is part of professional development.

 

Take a look at the first pages on the latter search. .

I know it may seem like a pet peeve of mine, but the issue I have is that although they do a good job of symbols when they get to the symbol that was originally intended to be an Earth ground symbol they call it circuit ground.
It is like when someone draws a circuit, there is only one symbol they know and not only use it in the wrong context, but name it wrong.
Not much point having a symbol standard if no one sticks to it.
http://www.brucearch.com/videos.html#vid2
Max.

 

Thank you, Max.

Grounding, has always been one of my pet peeves.
Still waiting for the schematic, and grounding applications; to "Click".......

 

Leonalee, welcome to AAC. You have replied to a year-old thread! I doubt the thread author (OP) is watching .