Talk:Electronic symbol

Zener diode

I'm sure the zener diode should look like it has a Z across the end of it (this one looks more like an S) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.240.170.196 (talk • contribs) 14 okt 2010 11:39‎

IEEE Std. 315-1975 section 8.5.6.1, page 140, shows the same symbol as shown in the article and describes it as a "unidirectional voltage regulator diode". What standard shows a Z? I don't see either a Z or S, myself.

On the other hand, the vacuum tube symbols disagree with 7.1.1.2, which says an indirectly heated cathode shouldbe a straight line, not the pot-hook shown in these symbols. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The "Zener Diode" page has the symbol: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Zener_diode_symbol-2.svg

which is quite different to the symbol on the "Diode" page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Zener_diode_symbol.svg

Please would someone knowledgeable add a correction or note to indicate why there is a difference ? Darkman101 (talk) 09:40, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Abbreviations

It's not clear why there are two overlapping lists of component abbreviations --Belg4mit (talk) 01:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Missing Symbols

There are symbols in the introductory thumbnail not in the body, which also has a conspicuous absence of light bulbs. --Belg4mit (talk) 01:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Also need a symbol for Circuit Breakers, which are mentioned in the abbreviations list. Other missing symbols (Relays, Motors, etc.) can be found by following the links provided, but no link, and no symbol on the Circuit Breaker Wiki page. --Arciver (talk) 19:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Someone needs to add the symbol for a motorCircuitboardsushi (talk) 19:22, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Please add the symbols found on multi-meters. I believe that a swan hyphen means AC, I see a symbol with a swan hyphen with a straight hyphen above, does that mean DC or something a little different? FreeFlow99 (talk) 10:39, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Connector J vs. P is not related to gender

The article states "ASME Y14.44-2008 continues the convention of Plug P and Jack J when assigning references for connectors in electrical assemblies where a J (or jack) is the more fixed and P (or plug) is the less fixed of a connector pair without regard to the gender of the connector contacts." which I believe is correct from my long ago study of the IEEE standard. However, the table below that statement lists J Jack connector (female) and P Plug connector (male). I suggest removing the female and male references as they contradict the statement in the text and the standards.Como andas (talk) 15:44, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I updated the article table to reflect the position taken by Wikipedia's Jack and Plug articles: "often, but not always," female/male. Wbm1058 (talk) 15:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Subscription only link

The external link to "International standard IEC 60617 DB Graphical symbols for diagrams" is a subscripion only link, and therefore I would suggest should be replaced with a publicly available authoritative link. Darkman101 (talk) 09:37, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

like what? Engeffehn (talk) 21:58, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Do not link to "pirated" copies of "paid specifications" because it can result in legal threats, see Talk:Peripheral Component Interconnect. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 02:33, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Not technically correct: reference to BS 3939

"Also known as BS 3939"

This is not absolutely correct - "BS 3939:2001" is "Aerospace series. Nickel base alloy NI-B46001 (NiCo20Si5B3). Filler metal for brazing. Powder or paste"

This could be misleading and/or confusing.

Specifically the part should be identified as part of the standard and also issue dates.

"BS 3939-1:1985" through "BS 3939-13:1985" would be correct - However they were withdrawn on 15 December 1996.

The most recent standards are "BS EN 60617-1:1996" through "BS EN 60617-13:1996", however these were withdrawn on 01 December 2005. No BS EN standard has replaced them.

It may be better to just remove the old reference to BS 3939 as there is no current version of it and just leave the reference to the IEC 60617-1 to IEC 60617-13. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qzertyy (talk • contribs) 10:36, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

PNP Transistor Symbol and Rotation

The symbol is generally correct, but it is shown inconsistent with the other transistors symbols. It is standard practice to show the symbols for transistors of all types rotated so that the emitter or source is at the bottom. All of the other symbols used here are shown properly in this way. The idea that symbols are also used when rotated in 90-degree steps is valid, but a separate idea; this concept might be good to explain in the article.
Rich S 10001 (talk) 15:42, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, technically it is correct to show any type of transistor in any rotation, but for clarify and uniformity they should be shown in the modern standard practice. Also, text should be added about the circle is optional for all transistors, though I'm not sure what is the "official" way to do it in 2014. I notice the circle is missing from high-density schematics (which is fine) especially describing the internals of IC chips, but it seems to be more common in lower density schematics. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 18:13, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Regarding rotation, it seems we agree that they should be shown in the modern standard practice, which would be for the PNP emitter to be at the bottom like the NPN symbol, and similar to the source terminals' location for the JFETs and MOSFETs. Regarding the circle, I was taught that was added to indicate a "sealed" or passivated transistor (glass-layer for protection). Some old transistors apparently were not so protected. I'll see if I can find my textbook or another source. I think most if not all transistors are passivated now for reliability, so the circle has become standard but omitting it is acceptable, like you stated. I think the circle is used for the ANSI/IEEE standard for transistors, while the European standard lacks it. • Rich S 10001 (talk) 18:34, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Public Domain Symbols

I'd like to see all the symbols in this article updated with a similar look / line width /text, so the drawings doesn't look like they came from random places. If anyone knows of "public domain" symbols that could be used in this article, please respond with a link to them. We must have proof they are "public domain" and/or meets the Wikipedia copyright requirements. If we can find symbols from one good source, then we could switch at some point in the future. We need to find SVG (vector) or PNG (bitmap) file formats, since some fuzzy symbols in this article are JPG (arg!!!). • Sbmeirow • Talk • 18:20, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Symbol design guidelines

We need to make sure all symbols are compatible with each other. I recommend using 1 px line width. That's whats used in most symbols thus far. Ultimately we need a single file with all the symbols in the same scale as a symbol library. Erik 21:21, 20 July 2016 (UTC) <!— Template:Unsigned -->— Preceding unsigned comment added by ErikBuer (talk • contribs)

A pixel has no inherent width, since that's display-dependent. — tooki (talk) 21:46, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Ammeter & Voltmeter Symbols

Please would someone add the symbols for voltmeter and ammeter. Darkman101 (talk) 02:37, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Alternate Capacitor Symbols

If anyone ever decided to create new symbols, you might want to create more alternate symbols too. I've seen this electrolytic capacitor symbol in the past (2 plates with diagonal lines between them), and after seeing this question I decided to repost it here. I've seen other flavors over the years too. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 07:16, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

• https://www.reddit.com/r/AskElectronics/comments/6de2bx/what_does_this_variant_on_a_capacitor_symbol_mean/
• https://imgur.com/03tTxMf

Have a look here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Capacitor_symbols. --Ajv39 (talk) 15:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! • Sbmeirow • Talk • 07:01, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Battery Symbol

At some point in the future, maybe we could start an "symbol history" section in this article, or another article. The following might be useful at that time.

• What are the origins of the battery symbol?

• Sbmeirow • Talk • 01:29, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

A short explanation or rationale for the shape of symbols could be useful as well 177.226.255.173 (talk) 23:19, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

"Historical symbols" section concern

Is it really necessary to move all the old capacitor symbols to their own section, at the opposite end of the article? I can't see how it's justified, as it makes comparison and visual identification harder. Besides, being the only components there, and there being no citations, it feels too much like a personal issue by the author (who is the main contributor). If we're being fair, transistor and vacuum tube symbols have had changing styles over the decades, yet they're not mentioned.

I find it useful for the obsolete symbols to be marked as such, but would much prefer them be in their own relevant sections. 177.226.255.173 (talk) 23:18, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Zina diode symbol

Zina diode symbol 223.123.104.171 (talk) 07:07, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

wut? • Sbmeirow • Talk • 07:27, 13 November 2023 (UTC)