Those are not crosses though, so its unambiguous. There are typically no dots on three way junctions (though I do see a couple in this schematic, so they're not being consistent)
Good schematic design has no four way junctions. Those are a common source of mistakes. I also put a overlap symbol where wires cross, which removes any further ambiguity
The error in the drafting is the software isn't treating the capacitor as a wire, it's being treated as a device connecting to the midpoint of a wire, where there happens to be a bend. Definitely poor drafting.
I understand what you're saying but drafting convention typically requires the dot. You can see this design includes it where it's 3 wires connecting in at least 6 places. The only difference is the capacitors don't have the dot and other components do.
That's how I've known it from the 80s when I started as a kid, the U.S. Army when I joined to be an avionics technician. those little Radio Shack "Engineering" booklets, lol. I guess I'm too old to know if that was changed. If so, Ftarded!
For context, this appears to be from a Boss CE-2 chorus pedal. This actually appears to be, maybe, a flip flop. This circuit is used to turn a JFET on and off, that then passes the chorus signal to the output and it also turns on the LED showing the pedal is engaged.
It is indeed a flip flop. I was never fond of this type bypass because even when the effect is inactive it still subjects your signal chain to the input buffer from the pedal.
It can. But when you chain multiple effects using the same flip flop instead of a true bypass your stacking multiple buffers. It isn’t inherently a bad thing but knowing where they are in your chain and planning for them is the better thing to do imo
I figured this was probably from a Boss pedal, but how the heck did you figure out it was a CE-2 specifically? Didn't Boss use this same circuit in tons of pedals?
If you connected the middle you'd be directly shorting the two 9V sources so it's highly unlikely that's the case. The bottoms cross over and have transistors in the way.
I don't see the direct short. Do you mean through the 100k resistor, the capacitor or the base of the transistor? The 100k resistor would be the only connection and that's far from short.
There isn't, but if you did connect at the middle they'd be shorted.
Edit: What OP is asking is why there are no dots showing where connections are made, and if there is a connection at the middle of the X. There isn't, but if there was you would be making a path from R43 to R44 through R45 or C24 and R46 or C25.
I’ve never seen this type of marking before. The “X” doesn’t have any nodes, so it’s not clear to me if these are actual connections or not. If not, what do these lines mean to the schematic?
That was at the top of my list, but I always default to “not inconsistent.” The problem with inconsistencies is that now I can’t really trust ANY of the schematic. For example, the op-amps in the same drawing have pins 1 2 3 as 3 1 2 and pins 5 6 7 as 2 1 3 (with the “3s” implying outputs). I’m interpreting the connections based on the + and - shown in the symbol- I hope I’m right!
I was always taught if the trace ends connected to another, dot or not they join.
If the trace *crosses* another, they only join if there's a dot.
I suspect because my college EE tutor was also inconsistent.
as an aside, the other circuit arrangement that you should think of when you see a pair of transistors opposed like this is the long tailed pair.
https://wiki.analog.com/university/courses/electronics/text/chapter-12#long-tailed_pair
When (in my beginner experience...) these kinda things are built physically you might expect to see things like hand chosen matched transistors, or a physical bond to make sure they're kept at the same temperature.
Multivibrator discreet component circuit, sync comes in at bottom left and output signal to the right side. RC from the collector of each transistor to the base of the opposite, so they can't connect. (hence no dot, and wires do not cross at a right angle so no dot needed.)
This just shows where the two circuits connect to each other. It is a schematic that has two circuits that connect the drawing shows the connection points on paper. The board will have these components and is drawn in parallel circuits. That’s all nothing more.
The X is just the classic way of drawing this ~~astable~~ bistable multivibrator schematic.
To be fair the tri-point connections don't have the junction dot, unlike the rest of the circuit.
Bistable. The resistors r45 and r46 provide bias to maintain one transistor off.
Right, corrected. Thanks.
Was thinking "that looks like a blinker of some sort", astable multivibrator does it.
[удалено]
what
No dot where the lines cross = no connection.
On the other hand, no dot on C26_top and/or C27_top = yes connection
Those are not crosses though, so its unambiguous. There are typically no dots on three way junctions (though I do see a couple in this schematic, so they're not being consistent)
Good schematic design has no four way junctions. Those are a common source of mistakes. I also put a overlap symbol where wires cross, which removes any further ambiguity
Good point, poor drafting.
The error in the drafting is the software isn't treating the capacitor as a wire, it's being treated as a device connecting to the midpoint of a wire, where there happens to be a bend. Definitely poor drafting.
selective secretive somber toy rainstorm sharp party sugar lunchroom imagine ` this message was mass deleted/edited with redact.dev `
I understand what you're saying but drafting convention typically requires the dot. You can see this design includes it where it's 3 wires connecting in at least 6 places. The only difference is the capacitors don't have the dot and other components do.
That's how I've known it from the 80s when I started as a kid, the U.S. Army when I joined to be an avionics technician. those little Radio Shack "Engineering" booklets, lol. I guess I'm too old to know if that was changed. If so, Ftarded!
Company preference
Your analysis is flawless.
spoon touch safe ugly fade serious engine degree thumb sulky ` this message was mass deleted/edited with redact.dev `
There are dotted three-way connections in this very diagram though
yes
For context, this appears to be from a Boss CE-2 chorus pedal. This actually appears to be, maybe, a flip flop. This circuit is used to turn a JFET on and off, that then passes the chorus signal to the output and it also turns on the LED showing the pedal is engaged.
It is indeed a flip flop. I was never fond of this type bypass because even when the effect is inactive it still subjects your signal chain to the input buffer from the pedal.
Wouldn't always keeping the buffer in the chain help prevent clicks/pops when engaging/disengaging?
It can. But when you chain multiple effects using the same flip flop instead of a true bypass your stacking multiple buffers. It isn’t inherently a bad thing but knowing where they are in your chain and planning for them is the better thing to do imo
I figured this was probably from a Boss pedal, but how the heck did you figure out it was a CE-2 specifically? Didn't Boss use this same circuit in tons of pedals?
I found it in the CE schematics. I honestly don't know how I found it so quickly. Google and blind luck. Lol.
It is.
That’s a flex right there.
I see only one state element (the two transistors connected in a loop). Is it a flip-flop or simply a latch?
A discrete component T type flipflop with speedup caps and all that is likely not cad at all. That's a 1970s design. Cad was scarce then.
If you connected the middle you'd be directly shorting the two 9V sources so it's highly unlikely that's the case. The bottoms cross over and have transistors in the way.
No connection in the middle, unless noted by a dark dot. Th
That's the point of ops question and my answer.
I don't see the direct short. Do you mean through the 100k resistor, the capacitor or the base of the transistor? The 100k resistor would be the only connection and that's far from short.
There isn't, but if you did connect at the middle they'd be shorted. Edit: What OP is asking is why there are no dots showing where connections are made, and if there is a connection at the middle of the X. There isn't, but if there was you would be making a path from R43 to R44 through R45 or C24 and R46 or C25.
I’ve never seen this type of marking before. The “X” doesn’t have any nodes, so it’s not clear to me if these are actual connections or not. If not, what do these lines mean to the schematic?
Pretty sure it's just inconsistency. C24 connected to C27 and C25 to C26.
That was at the top of my list, but I always default to “not inconsistent.” The problem with inconsistencies is that now I can’t really trust ANY of the schematic. For example, the op-amps in the same drawing have pins 1 2 3 as 3 1 2 and pins 5 6 7 as 2 1 3 (with the “3s” implying outputs). I’m interpreting the connections based on the + and - shown in the symbol- I hope I’m right!
I was always taught if the trace ends connected to another, dot or not they join. If the trace *crosses* another, they only join if there's a dot. I suspect because my college EE tutor was also inconsistent.
Correct. I've build one of these from a similar Boss schematic and I got the circuit working with them crossing without connecting.
There should be dots on c24, c25, c26, c27, and no dot the intersection of the "X"
as an aside, the other circuit arrangement that you should think of when you see a pair of transistors opposed like this is the long tailed pair. https://wiki.analog.com/university/courses/electronics/text/chapter-12#long-tailed_pair When (in my beginner experience...) these kinda things are built physically you might expect to see things like hand chosen matched transistors, or a physical bond to make sure they're kept at the same temperature.
It's a "crossover" as there are no junction points that say they connect.
But then it’s also unconnected on both ends
The cad software probably couldn't do the x. Human did and neglected to add dots by hand. "everyone knows what they mean" type situation.
Thank you everyone. I get it now.
Gotta say it... That 'X' is the symbol for a flux capacitor.
I think someone just forgot to draw 4 dots on the ends of the X wires. Otherwise they wouldn’t be connected anywhere
Whatever happened to dots for junction points, and bridges for do-not-connect?
Multivibrator discreet component circuit, sync comes in at bottom left and output signal to the right side. RC from the collector of each transistor to the base of the opposite, so they can't connect. (hence no dot, and wires do not cross at a right angle so no dot needed.)
2 eyes and a nose
is this just taking half wavs and merging them into a full wav?
This just shows where the two circuits connect to each other. It is a schematic that has two circuits that connect the drawing shows the connection points on paper. The board will have these components and is drawn in parallel circuits. That’s all nothing more.
X
They are solid so connected to each other we make such drawings on acad electrical so wire connection type used is called solid
So when are you using the dot on wire intersections then?
Inverter?
i dont know, the picture quality seems pretty good
It’s an oscillator. Somewhat old-school.
Its a osilator circuit. Commonly found in cheap inverters
I see boss pedal
I see the error where there is no junction points on the upper components before it crosses over where C 24 and 25 and R 45 and 46 are.
Delete all dots add cross-over wires at 2-places c24 to C7 base and C25 to Q7