Re: gEDA-user: gschem vs. PCB diode pin numbering - anode/cathode definition

[Colin D Bennett <colin@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 08:28:46 -0400
Ethan Swint <eswint.ramu@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On 08/24/2011 01:15 PM, Colin D Bennett wrote:
> > I understand that it is electrical convention to name diode terminal
> > anode and cathode, but I reject it as a confusing and ambiguous
> > naming convention.
> Yes, it's not quite correct, but it is a widely held convention,
> unlike numbering the pins 1 and 2 (or 3 or 4).

Agreed that A and K certainly avoids ambiguity, as compared to
numbering diode pins simply 1 and 2.  It is 100% superior as it does
convey the required information.

> > For my diode symbols and footprints, I choose to name the terminals
> > âPâ and âNâ (for the p-type doped side and the n-type doped side).
> If you use "P" and "N", Schottky diodes are now in error.  ;)

Good point.  The moral of the story is: at least name the pins in a
way that communicates the pin's function in a clear way.  I will have
to make my peace with the fact that there is no 100% technically
correct way to do so... at least we can avoid errors caused by
arbitrarily naming pins 1 and 2.

Regards,
Colin


_______________________________________________
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user