Which software might have been used to draw these electronic circuit diagrams?

[mustafayilmaz]

Hi,

I think this type of program was drawn in an old and not very well-known program. The symbol of the electrolytic capacitors catches my attention. It looks nice and understandable, as if it was transferred from a drawing assignment to the computer. In this respect, I like the CircuitMaker 2000 software, but the capacitor symbol is not there.

The author has mentioned in some places that he used Tango PCB. Does this program have a schematic drawing feature?

[thm_w]

Yes there are some similarities to circuitmaker: http://www.cs.nccu.edu.tw/~whliao/ds2003/cm_usermanual.pdf

You can always use that and edit the capacitor symbol to be the style that you like.
Or recreate all of the symbols in a modern tool.

Tango schematic is a thing but this version doesn't look similar: https://www.ezuim.com/pdf/cad_elo.pdf

[nctnico]

It could be Orcad (the DOS version) as well. With a little bit of post processing in an image editor. I have created similar looking diagrams in a long forgotten past.

[Bud]

The capacitor symbol looks cute but is overly complex and not used  today. You should be able to create your own one if you want it, most of schematic design software allow you to create custom symbols.

[schmitt trigger]

Not only the electrolytic capacitors, but output transistors Q1 thru Q4, clearly indicate that they are Darlingtons.

[CatalinaWOW]

Not only the electrolytic capacitors, but output transistors Q1 thru Q4, clearly indicate that they are Darlingtons.

Clear to some.  I have never encountered that symbol.  The one I like shows two junctions,

[mustafayilmaz]

I ran the TANGO schematic drawing program in a DOS environment. Drawing a circuit is quite frustrating. I couldn't get full control because some libraries gave errors. I guess it's not TANGO.

I also sent an e-mail to the author, I hope he gets back to me.

https://www.py2bbs.qsl.br/news.php#gsc.tab=0

[blackdog]

Hi,

It looks like the schematic was drawn with Splan.
That's the drawing package I use daily, all I put a little more time into the schematics so it's clearer for me at least.

But keep in mind, that no linking to a PCB drawing package is possible.
For me, this is no problem at all.

So make your own trade-off between the modern schematic drawing packages of which there are many bad examples on the Internet and neatly drawn schematics which you can make with Splan.
Many users have to use what I consider to be poor schematic drawing programs that come with their PCB package.
Everything has to be done quickly and this often results in schematics that are difficult to understand.

The Splan schematic package allows me (I hope) to create clear schematics without e.g. drawing component numbers or values across the component.
Splan's program allows me to place the component data neatly and if I want to use colors for the components and wiring.
I often draw the wiring where e.g. large currents flow a bit thicker.

Of course, how good the schedule looks is a combination of a number of things, the capabilities of the package, the attention of the draftsman and, for some, time constraints. 
This is a piece of a diagram which is not quite finished.
Also visible is the toolbar I created in Splan so I can quickly have the frequently used parts ready.


.

Unfortunately, I have not yet been able to find a CAD package that allows me to draw neat diagrams to my needs....

Kind regards,
Bram

[schmitt trigger]

You have vacuum tube symbols! Yay! 

[jpanhalt]

I don't see what it is that the OP wants to duplicate exactly unless it is the broken net line when they cross without a connection.

Everything else in that schematic can be duplicated in Eagle 7.xx.*  In Eagle, connections are relatively automatically dotted.  The posted schematic has at least one connection that is not dotted.  That's why I like auto dotting.  I suspect most other programs behave the similarly, with that exception noted.

*If  you insist on a break rather than a non-dotted crossing, you can force that behavior by breaking the net on either side of the cross, then name the two resulting nets the same.  In the board layout created by Eagle, same named nets will be connected by airwires.

[Messtechniker]

And old resistor symbols used in German schematics.

Use Splan 8 all the time.

[kripton2035]

Elektor schematics are really nice. I wonder what schematic software they use for it.

[voltsandjolts]

Unfortunately, I have not yet been able to find a CAD package that allows me to draw neat diagrams to my needs....

Maybe a little bit crazy - I find inkscape quite good for schematics when I'm not planning to make a PCB, but just a clear explanation of something. Setup the grid, default line width and in no time you have symbols for most things and it becomes quite quick to create yet gives a lot of freedom for more artistic elements.

Examples are:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/juntek-dpa-2698-10mhz-signal-amplifier-digilent-analog-discovery/msg3649978/#msg3649978
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/manufacture/hughes-hcd125-capacitor-discharge-welder/msg5737473/#msg5737473

[Andree Henkel]

@blackdog

there is no problem with the modern schematic drawing tools combined with pcb Layout software by themselves.

The problem is the garbage schematic symbols provided in the libraries of ultralibrarian and the like.

just boxes with pins. No symbol that shows function.

So if you want to make both PCB and readable schematics you need to put some work into the libraries you use. especially for the symbol part, taking the provided Footprints most times saves you a lot of work, but still check.

So if you don´t want to make PCB´s just do it your way.

[temperance]

just boxes with pins. No symbol that shows function.

That and people posting schematics for review with components made of of boxes with some randomly scattered around pins with strange names instead of the correct symbols for gates, amplifiers,... slammed together into yet an other set of boxes for which some time was wasted to write which function that block represents into it - which is anyhow obvious because buck regulators are probably for power supplies and sensors probably sense something - and all that tied together with labeled nets. It isn't done without drawing yet an other box around all those boxes.

I know a bloke who knows a bloke who knows an other bloke who can contact an other bloke.

[CatalinaWOW]

Having meaningful symbols works well for parts with low level of integration.  Quad Op Amps.  TTL Logic.  Mixers.  Things like that.  But boxes with pins are really the only way to go for processors and the like.  Conceivably you could create a symbol which correctly implemented the as configured function for a high end micro or programmable logic device.  But implementing, and keeping track of all of those symbols is a lot of work and can actually make use of the schematic harder.  When a timer block is used in controlling the output of several pins which sub-symbol do you assign it to for example and how to you read the resulting schematic.

For these more complex situations use the schematic to define electrical connectivity.  Put the functional description on another document.  It will tie together the firmware, software and hardware - each of which has its own best form of documentation.

[jpanhalt]

@CatalinaWOW
As you say, for almost anything more complicated than a logic chip or switch, the symbol is usually just a square box.  The LM555 is simple enough that including a block diagram inside the symbol is possible.  I don't see the need for that since it's in the datasheet and simply makes the schematic larger. 

That leads to the question of whether the pinout on the box or block diagram symbol should be functional or actual.  Datasheet examples with block diagrams are usually functional, and that makes since.  As my schematics are small and simple, I prefer box symbols with actual pinout, as that helps me unscramble the airwires in the board CAD.  (I almost never use autorouting.) Those discussions have been going on for ages.

Here's a sampling:
https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/144993/pcb-layout-functional-vs-actual-pin-order
https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/42590/cad-schematic-pin-arrangement-approach
Accoding to Olin (always certain seldom wrong) Lathrop:
"This is a no-brainer, use the functional layout approach. "
"Pin-order symbols is mostly laziness on the part of someone defining the part in the CAD system. "

EEVBlog is no stranger to this discussion either: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/eda/pins-in-real-position-or-grouped-by-function-in-schematic-symbol/

Just a thought.

[mustafayilmaz]

@blackdog

It looks like Splan but the electrolytic capacitor symbol is not there.

Sprint layout is very good but I did not like Splan very much. After drawing the circuit, when you move the component, the connections do not automatically remain connected to the component, they move independently. Also, I do not like that the connection and cable connections are made from a separate menu.

[temperance]

Having meaningful symbols works well for parts with low level of integration.  Quad Op Amps.  TTL Logic.  Mixers.  Things like that.  But boxes with pins are really the only way to go for processors and the like.  Conceivably you could create a symbol which correctly implemented the as configured function for a high end micro or programmable logic device.  But implementing, and keeping track of all of those symbols is a lot of work and can actually make use of the schematic harder.  When a timer block is used in controlling the output of several pins which sub-symbol do you assign it to for example and how to you read the resulting schematic.

For these more complex situations use the schematic to define electrical connectivity.  Put the functional description on another document.  It will tie together the firmware, software and hardware - each of which has its own best form of documentation.

Of course, you are not supposed to draw the internals of a complicated chip on your schematics. And that's not what I'm on about. As stated, it is about using boxes with pins scattered around while those are logic gates, op amps,... for which standard symbols do exist. Of course no one is going to draw the internals of a micro controller or anything else for which a standard symbol doesn't exist although it does help to sometimes add some detail into such a block. Examples are in my case are motor drive gate drive IC's with current sens amplifiers, gate drivers with floating buffers, the MOSFET's in high and low side switches to remind one of the internal diode,...

[Andree Henkel]

exactly, I once had to redesign a circuit containing a H-Bridge, where each half was a MOSFET array with one NFET and a PFET, just drawn as Box with 8 named Pins.
Circuit function was so much more clear after I made a Symbol showing the Two FET, now you actually saw the H-Bridge.

Schematics are not only to enter netlist connectivity for a PCB

They are tools for debugging, repair, education

The original designer may still know what function he designed.

But curse him, if he is gone and it´s now your task, same if you to want help doing peer review. And the Schematics show now love regarding readability.