-4
\$\begingroup\$

Previously, I and my workmate have a hard time to recreate board schematic on Electronics Stack Exchange because it can't simply import our schematic from Autodesk Eagle. Then we ditched it and upload as screenshot from Eagle because it won't work as we expected.

We wonder if it technically possible to import schematic from any schematic maker software on the market. Pretty sure there are a lot of electronic engineers have the same problem.

\$\endgroup\$
9
  • 5
    \$\begingroup\$ Integrating support for all existing schematics formats within stackexchange would surely keep the staff busy for multiple months/years, and I'm pretty sure they have more productive stuff to do. Besides, people answering here want to see a schematic, but typically don't need to make use of the original schematic data to answer questions. So in the end, I don't see what's wrong with a screenshot. In fact, I think it's much easier to screenshot the interesting part of the circuit than importing the whole thing (that is typically spread into multiple files depending on the tool). \$\endgroup\$
    – dim
    Jan 6 at 9:44
  • \$\begingroup\$ Previously, I did put schematic as a screenshot and the moderator says I'm not following standard because the transistor isn't facing right but left. That would be nicer if Stack Exchange could provide better way to show schematic. \$\endgroup\$ Jan 6 at 10:13
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ The readability problems that were raised on this schematic are due to the way the schematic has been drawn originally. You could convert the schematic to any format, have it as a PNG or printed as a paper sheet, and the problems would still be there. Having the ability to upload an eagle schematic on stackexchange would not fix any of those. Or are you thinking of having an AI system that would automagically fix the drawing problems on any schematic? That's difficult and useless: once you get used to the drawing conventions, making a readable schematic isn't harder than drawing a bad one. \$\endgroup\$
    – dim
    Jan 6 at 10:44
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @Thor-x86_128 -- we do provide a tool for generating circuit diagrams. Just click the button that looks like a circuit in your edit window. If you need something more complicated than that, more often than not, the schematic is too complicated to usefully support a well posed question. \$\endgroup\$ Jan 6 at 23:25
  • \$\begingroup\$ @ScottSeidman how about "import" instead of "generate" the schematic? \$\endgroup\$ Jan 7 at 5:12
  • \$\begingroup\$ @dim That not has to be an AI. Imagine the moderators can simply drag stuff to make it a lot nicer, instead of asking the question creator to reopen the schematic maker software, drag the stuff, screenshot, and reupload. \$\endgroup\$ Jan 7 at 5:14
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ @Thor-x86_128 it's not the moderators' job to make your schematic look good. \$\endgroup\$
    – brhans
    Jan 8 at 0:35
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ - and what makes you think that they have or should spend time on cleaning up your question(s) anyway? The moderators on SE sites are just regular users like you and me who got elected to their positions. They're not paid employees of SE and (probably) have better thing to do with their time. \$\endgroup\$
    – brhans
    Jan 9 at 15:23
  • \$\begingroup\$ I think the idea is good, but it would need too much effort. What could work: export the schema in svg, and embed this svg, with download link to the orig file. This already could be automatized and it would not need so much dev effort. \$\endgroup\$
    – peterh
    yesterday
0
\$\begingroup\$

I'm not a moderator, just a "concerned citizen". The problem with your schematic has nothing to do with formats, but that it was poorly drawn by a novice who is unaware of industry standards and conventions for how to draw proper schematics. The link I gave you, Rules and guidelines for drawing good schematics, is not rules for this site, but best practices used by all electrical engineers out there in the real world. An important part of an engineer's job is to follow established international standards and not invent some local one on project basis.

It is a well-known convention that MOSFETs, BJTs, OP amps, digital logic and many other common components should always be drawn with the gate/base/input etc to the left, supplies facing upwards and ground downwards. Overall, using common sense will get you very far: the ground is downwards.

An N-MOSFET is drawn with an arrow from source at the bottom of the symbol to the gate. A P-MOSFET is drawn with an arrow from the gate to the source at the top. So when you draw your MOSFET mirrored or upside down, you will confuse everyone reading the schematic needlessly and distracting from understanding the actual question.

An IC with signals written on it should naturally be placed so that it can be read by humans without turning the paper/screen 90 degrees. This goes for all designators in the schematic too.

Similarly, there exist no schematics where SMD codes are written for components, the actual values are what's written. You wouldn't write "Brown Black Black" when designing a schematic for through-hole resistors, now would you.

\$\endgroup\$
1
  • \$\begingroup\$ While your description of MOSFET symbols is common, it does not follow IEEE Std 315. This standard says that the arrow indicating N or P is at the substrate terminal, not the source, and direction of the arrow is therefore the opposite of what it would be at the source. The location of the source terminal (as opposed to the drain) is indicated by the right-angle in the gate terminal. See sections 8.6.10.5 and 8.6.11.5 \$\endgroup\$ Jan 14 at 16:39

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .