| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 26 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 51:33:45 |
| Calls: | 632 |
| Files: | 1,187 |
| D/L today: |
21 files (18,502K bytes) |
| Messages: | 178,040 |
*NOT* "power switch" but, rather, (electrical) "Power".
E.g., to label a connector as carrying (to or from)
power while the actual connection details (polarity,
AC/DC, etc.) are buried in the "connector" concept.
Best suggestion, thus far, has been a lightning bolt
(and variations thereon). But, there is some concern
that this may be interpreted to mean "shock hazard",
"high voltage", etc.
While were at it, suggestions for "field" connections?
*NOT* "power switch" but, rather, (electrical) "Power".
E.g., to label a connector as carrying (to or from)
power while the actual connection details (polarity,
AC/DC, etc.) are buried in the "connector" concept.
Best suggestion, thus far, has been a lightning bolt
(and variations thereon). But, there is some concern
that this may be interpreted to mean "shock hazard",
"high voltage", etc.
While were at it, suggestions for "field" connections?
*NOT* "power switch" but, rather, (electrical) "Power".
E.g., to label a connector as carrying (to or from)
power while the actual connection details (polarity,
AC/DC, etc.) are buried in the "connector" concept.
Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:
*NOT* "power switch" but, rather, (electrical) "Power".
E.g., to label a connector as carrying (to or from)
power while the actual connection details (polarity,
AC/DC, etc.) are buried in the "connector" concept.
I would have thought a connector that could be either a source or sink
of power would be a rare occurrence.
If you just mean something to indicate that two wires are connected
together (regardless of what power actually flows - and which way) a
simple dot serves in most cases. If I need to indoicate a specific type
of terminal, which could be demountable, I use a circle with a diagonal
line through it (like a reclining Greek letter phi), which used to mean
a screw terminal in the days when wireless sets were built on ebonite
panels.
"Don Y" <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote in message news:10cll53$2vfai$1@dont-email.me...
*NOT* "power switch" but, rather, (electrical) "Power".
Radiating light bulb?
There are some here:
https://www.google.com/search?q=power+light+symbol&udm=2
E.g., to label a connector as carrying (to or from)
power while the actual connection details (polarity,
AC/DC, etc.) are buried in the "connector" concept.
Best suggestion, thus far, has been a lightning bolt
(and variations thereon). But, there is some concern
that this may be interpreted to mean "shock hazard",
"high voltage", etc.
While were at it, suggestions for "field" connections?
On 10/14/2025 9:51 AM, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:
*NOT* "power switch" but, rather, (electrical) "Power".
E.g., to label a connector as carrying (to or from)
power while the actual connection details (polarity,
AC/DC, etc.) are buried in the "connector" concept.
I would have thought a connector that could be either a source or sink
of power would be a rare occurrence.
Anderson connectors?-a Identical connector on supply and load.
There are automotive connectors that are similarly "genderless".
If you just mean something to indicate that two wires are connected
together (regardless of what power actually flows - and which way) a
simple dot serves in most cases.-a If I need to indoicate a specific type
of terminal, which could be demountable, I use a circle with a diagonal
line through it (like a reclining Greek letter phi), which used to mean
a screw terminal in the days when wireless sets were built on ebonite
panels.
Nothing as specific as "number of conductors", etc.
"This cable is power"
Marking to appear on connectors as well as documentation
(e.g., block diagrams don't need to show individual connectors
to convey "this cable is power")
Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:
*NOT* "power switch" but, rather, (electrical) "Power".
E.g., to label a connector as carrying (to or from)
power while the actual connection details (polarity,
AC/DC, etc.) are buried in the "connector" concept.
I would have thought a connector that could be either a source or sink
of power would be a rare occurrence.
E.g., to label a connector as carrying (to or from) power while the
actual connection details (polarity, AC/DC, etc.) are buried in the "connector" concept.
Best suggestion, thus far, has been a lightning bolt (and variations thereon).
But, there is some concern that this may be interpreted to mean
"shock hazard", "high voltage", etc.
While were at it, suggestions for "field" connections?
On Tue, 14 Oct 2025 07:02:07 -0700, Don Y
<blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:
*NOT* "power switch" but, rather, (electrical) "Power".
E.g., to label a connector as carrying (to or from)
power while the actual connection details (polarity,
AC/DC, etc.) are buried in the "connector" concept.
I can imagine a schematic sheet with so many of them it would look
like a thunderstorm.
Best suggestion, thus far, has been a lightning bolt
(and variations thereon). But, there is some concern
that this may be interpreted to mean "shock hazard",
"high voltage", etc.
What's wrong with a net name and an optional comment on the schematic?
There are international standards for schematic symbols and reference designators, which are often abused. CON4, JMP6, TR7, DIO12, IC3.
While were at it, suggestions for "field" connections?
Comment in plain English.
Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:
E.g., to label a connector as carrying (to or from) power while the
actual connection details (polarity, AC/DC, etc.) are buried in the
"connector" concept.
It falls down on the "bury it in the details" concept, but:
Solid line over dashed line for DC input.
Sinewave (or sinewave-in-circle) for AC input.
If an input can accept both, use both symbols.
Combine the solid-over-dashed or sinewave symbol with the generic input /output symbol: circle with an arrow pointing into the circle for input, circle with an arrow pointing out of the circle for output.
Best suggestion, thus far, has been a lightning bolt (and variations
thereon).
That's not too bad for things like cell phones and other devices that
charge via USB - the lightning bolt is pretty well understood to mean "charging". The icon for "charging in progress" is pretty universally
a lightning bolt over a battery icon.
But, there is some concern that this may be interpreted to mean
"shock hazard", "high voltage", etc.
"Shock hazard" gets three lightning bolts and the !-in-triangle symbol.
:) Maybe the "book with letter I" symbol if you want them to go read
the manual (protip: nobody ever reads the manual).
While were at it, suggestions for "field" connections?
Circle with arrow pointing in, circle with arrow pointing out.
It might be good to additionally label it with the expected input or
output range, but maybe that's too much detail. Like, "0-5V" for an
analog input, or "24 V (sinewave)" for an AC output, or whatever.
*NOT* "power switch" but, rather, (electrical) "Power".
E.g., to label a connector as carrying (to or from)
power while the actual connection details (polarity,
AC/DC, etc.) are buried in the "connector" concept.
Best suggestion, thus far, has been a lightning bolt
(and variations thereon). But, there is some concern
that this may be interpreted to mean "shock hazard",
"high voltage", etc.
While were at it, suggestions for "field" connections?
In message <10cll53$2vfai$1@dont-email.me>, Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid>
writes
*NOT* "power switch" but, rather, (electrical) "Power".
E.g., to label a connector as carrying (to or from)
power while the actual connection details (polarity,
AC/DC, etc.) are buried in the "connector" concept.
Best suggestion, thus far, has been a lightning bolt
(and variations thereon).-a But, there is some concern
that this may be interpreted to mean "shock hazard",
"high voltage", etc.
While were at it, suggestions for "field" connections?
Is that "Power" as opposed to small signals and data ?
How about a "battery" symbol ?
-a-a lightning bold usually implies a hazardous
voltage . There is no symbol for a hazardous current.
<Https://www.caledoniasigns.co.uk/Caledonia-Signs-Electrical-Warning-Safe ty-Signs/Caledonia-Signs-Warning-Arc-Flash-Hazard-De-Energize>
Closest I can find
-aIn your application it might not be hazardous .-a You don't want to instil
fear and alarm.
*NOT* "power switch" but, rather, (electrical) "Power".
E.g., to label a connector as carrying (to or from)
power while the actual connection details (polarity,
AC/DC, etc.) are buried in the "connector" concept.
Best suggestion, thus far, has been a lightning bolt
(and variations thereon). But, there is some concern
that this may be interpreted to mean "shock hazard",
"high voltage", etc.
On 14/10/2025 15:02, Don Y wrote:
*NOT* "power switch" but, rather, (electrical) "Power".
E.g., to label a connector as carrying (to or from)
power while the actual connection details (polarity,
AC/DC, etc.) are buried in the "connector" concept.
Best suggestion, thus far, has been a lightning bolt
(and variations thereon). But, there is some concern
that this may be interpreted to mean "shock hazard",
"high voltage", etc.
Just messing around a bit, but "V" is universally accepted as a symbol
for voltage, so I wondered about this:
<https://ibb.co/Cs9TPxcW>
It suggests volts in/out but without the shock hazard association of a lightning bolt. I guess there's room to add a ~ above the V if you
wanted to make clear it's AC.
On 10/14/25 7:47 AM, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 14 Oct 2025 07:02:07 -0700, Don Y
<blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:
*NOT* "power switch" but, rather, (electrical) "Power".
E.g., to label a connector as carrying (to or from)
power while the actual connection details (polarity,
AC/DC, etc.) are buried in the "connector" concept.
I can imagine a schematic sheet with so many of them it would look
like a thunderstorm.
Best suggestion, thus far, has been a lightning bolt
(and variations thereon). But, there is some concern
that this may be interpreted to mean "shock hazard",
"high voltage", etc.
What's wrong with a net name and an optional comment on the schematic?
There are international standards for schematic symbols and reference
designators, which are often abused. CON4, JMP6, TR7, DIO12, IC3.
While were at it, suggestions for "field" connections?
Comment in plain English.
Plain English is always best IMHO. For power I'd use "POWER" or "MAINS"
and if not enough space "PWR". Same for field which could be abbreviated >"FLD". Aircraft cockpits are a good example, they do not have any of
those nonsensical "pictograms".
I had a Europeanized Chrysler when I was young. One day a yellow light
below the dash lit up. Looked like a sideways Big Mac and I couldn't
find it in the manual. Called the dealer, no clue. Went to their repair >shop, lots of headscratching. After some searching through microfiche >instructions (no Internet back then) it turned out to be the warning
signal for insufficient material left on a brake pad.
When that happens on a US car it says "BRAKE" and everyone knows.
Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:
*NOT* "power switch" but, rather, (electrical) "Power".
E.g., to label a connector as carrying (to or from)
power while the actual connection details (polarity,
AC/DC, etc.) are buried in the "connector" concept.
I would have thought a connector that could be either a source or sink
of power would be a rare occurrence.
If everything was mains powered, that would be easy:-a look
for the "plug"/power cord!
The user (consumer) needs to just
know "this is the 'power' cable" (so one can refer to it as such).
Whether it is running AC, DC, both, etc. is unimportant. Or, if
it is carrying other signals that (strictly speaking) aren't
"power". To the user, it's just a cable that we've decided to
*call* The Power Cable.
Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:
The user (consumer) needs to just
know "this is the 'power' cable" (so one can refer to it as such).
Whether it is running AC, DC, both, etc. is unimportant. Or, if
it is carrying other signals that (strictly speaking) aren't
"power". To the user, it's just a cable that we've decided to
*call* The Power Cable.
In that case the symbol doesn't need to convey the literal meaning of "Power", it just needs to convey "That cable goes here". A letter or a number would do equally well, but if you must have a symbol it could be
a simple geometrical shape that you haven't used anywhere else.
On 10/16/2025 3:45 AM, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:
The user (consumer) needs to just
know "this is the 'power' cable" (so one can refer to it as such).
Whether it is running AC, DC, both, etc. is unimportant. Or, if
it is carrying other signals that (strictly speaking) aren't
"power". To the user, it's just a cable that we've decided to
*call* The Power Cable.
In that case the symbol doesn't need to convey the literal meaning of "Power", it just needs to convey "That cable goes here". A letter or a number would do equally well, but if you must have a symbol it could be
a simple geometrical shape that you haven't used anywhere else.
Of course. Just like the pink and green and blue cables on PCs.
But, you then have to explain what those numbers mean someplace
where you are sure the user will *read* it.
Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:
On 10/16/2025 3:45 AM, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:
The user (consumer) needs to just
know "this is the 'power' cable" (so one can refer to it as such).
Whether it is running AC, DC, both, etc. is unimportant. Or, if
it is carrying other signals that (strictly speaking) aren't
"power". To the user, it's just a cable that we've decided to
*call* The Power Cable.
In that case the symbol doesn't need to convey the literal meaning of
"Power", it just needs to convey "That cable goes here". A letter or a
number would do equally well, but if you must have a symbol it could be
a simple geometrical shape that you haven't used anywhere else.
Of course. Just like the pink and green and blue cables on PCs.
But, you then have to explain what those numbers mean someplace
where you are sure the user will *read* it.
No you don't. As long as the cable plugs into the hole with the same
symbol as the plug, it will work. It won't matter to the user if that
is an Ehernet connection, a power connector or an optical SPDIF output.
No need to read anything or understand why you are doing it.
When the user can't get it to work and calls in someone who realises
there is no power on the machine, that is the time for the expert (or
the user who has exhausted all the wrong possibilities) to read the
manual and try to understand the system.
If you really want a symbol for "Power input" how about the split circle
with a line, which is the "On" symbol on power switches?
On 10/16/2025 6:00 AM, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:
On 10/16/2025 3:45 AM, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:
The user (consumer) needs to just
know "this is the 'power' cable" (so one can refer to it as such).
Whether it is running AC, DC, both, etc. is unimportant. Or, if
it is carrying other signals that (strictly speaking) aren't
"power". To the user, it's just a cable that we've decided to
*call* The Power Cable.
In that case the symbol doesn't need to convey the literal meaning of
"Power", it just needs to convey "That cable goes here". A letter or a >>> number would do equally well, but if you must have a symbol it could be >>> a simple geometrical shape that you haven't used anywhere else.
Of course. Just like the pink and green and blue cables on PCs.
But, you then have to explain what those numbers mean someplace
where you are sure the user will *read* it.
No you don't. As long as the cable plugs into the hole with the same symbol as the plug, it will work. It won't matter to the user if that
is an Ehernet connection, a power connector or an optical SPDIF output.
No need to read anything or understand why you are doing it.
No, you are making assumptions about how the user will act. What
order will he make the connections? Will he know how many there
are that need to be made? Can I operate my PC without headphones?
A microphone? Network cable? SCSI cable? Monitor cable?
"Power" is always a significant connection -- because, with that,
the device can perform, even if not EVERY intended function.
When the user can't get it to work and calls in someone who realises
there is no power on the machine, that is the time for the expert (or
the user who has exhausted all the wrong possibilities) to read the
manual and try to understand the system.
You don't want the user to have to "call" someone. Once a device
has power, *it* can assist the user. I have loopbacks on all
connections so every device can examine its field connections
and, at the very least, ensure something "similar" to its desired
field is available to it.
But, without *power*, those loopbacks can't be exercised.
If you really want a symbol for "Power input" how about the split circle with a line, which is the "On" symbol on power switches?
That's the symbol used for a power *control*. What do you then
use for THAT label?
Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:
On 10/16/2025 3:45 AM, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:
The user (consumer) needs to just
know "this is the 'power' cable" (so one can refer to it as such).
Whether it is running AC, DC, both, etc. is unimportant. Or, if
it is carrying other signals that (strictly speaking) aren't
"power". To the user, it's just a cable that we've decided to
*call* The Power Cable.
In that case the symbol doesn't need to convey the literal meaning of
"Power", it just needs to convey "That cable goes here". A letter or a
number would do equally well, but if you must have a symbol it could be
a simple geometrical shape that you haven't used anywhere else.
Of course. Just like the pink and green and blue cables on PCs.
But, you then have to explain what those numbers mean someplace
where you are sure the user will *read* it.
No you don't. As long as the cable plugs into the hole with the same
symbol as the plug, it will work. It won't matter to the user if that
is an Ehernet connection, a power connector or an optical SPDIF output.
No need to read anything or understand why you are doing it.
When the user can't get it to work and calls in someone who realises
there is no power on the machine, that is the time for the expert (or
the user who has exhausted all the wrong possibilities) to read the
manual and try to understand the system.
If you really want a symbol for "Power input" how about the split circle
with a line, which is the "On" symbol on power switches?
On 16/10/2025 14:00, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:The split circle with a line is actually the standby symbol.-a The power symbol is a full circle with a line in it.
On 10/16/2025 3:45 AM, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:
The user (consumer) needs to just
know "this is the 'power' cable" (so one can refer to it as such).
Whether it is running AC, DC, both, etc. is unimportant.-a Or, if
it is carrying other signals that (strictly speaking) aren't
"power".-a To the user, it's just a cable that we've decided to
*call* The Power Cable.
In that case the symbol doesn't need to convey the literal meaning of
"Power", it just needs to convey "That cable goes here".-a A letter or a >>>> number would do equally well, but if you must have a symbol it could be >>>> a simple geometrical shape that you haven't used anywhere else.
Of course.-a Just like the pink and green and blue cables on PCs.
But, you then have to explain what those numbers mean someplace
where you are sure the user will *read* it.
No you don't.-a As long as the cable plugs into the hole with the same
symbol as the plug, it will work.-a It won't matter to the user if that
is an Ehernet connection, a power connector or an optical SPDIF output.
No need to read anything or understand why you are doing it.
When the user can't get it to work and calls in someone who realises
there is no power on the machine, that is the time for the expert (or
the user who has exhausted all the wrong possibilities) to read the
manual and try to understand the system.
If you really want a symbol for "Power input" how about the split circle
with a line, which is the "On" symbol on power switches?
John
"Power" is always a significant connection -- because, with that,
the device can perform, even if not EVERY intended function.
When the user can't get it to work and calls in someone who realises
there is no power on the machine, that is the time for the expert (or
the user who has exhausted all the wrong possibilities) to read the
manual and try to understand the system.
You don't want the user to have to "call" someone. Once a device
has power, *it* can assist the user. I have loopbacks on all
connections so every device can examine its field connections
and, at the very least, ensure something "similar" to its desired
field is available to it.
But, without *power*, those loopbacks can't be exercised.
If you really want a symbol for "Power input" how about the split circle >>> with a line, which is the "On" symbol on power switches?
That's the symbol used for a power *control*. What do you then
use for THAT label?
The same. The difference between a switch and a connector should be
obvious to the user - the mental connection between them would be less obvious but could be established by using the same symbol for both.
If you really want a symbol for "Power input" how about the split circleThe split circle with a line is actually the standby symbol.-a The power symbol is a full circle with a line in it.
with a line, which is the "On" symbol on power switches?
That;s more detail than is needed.