Circuit drawing software

[Monkeh]

Most simulators refer to the reference as 'ground', as that is standard electronic nomenclature..

I'm not so sure about that as a generalisation. Particularly in terms of RF circuitry, 'ground' and the reference point for the DC supply to the circuitry are not necessarily the same thing.

Kind Regards, John

Yes, and this is why we have ground, chassis ground, protective ground, RF ground, analog ground, digital ground, power ground, and many more...

Not saying it's good, just that it is.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

It's only a quirk if you interpret the term 'ground' as a connection to the Earth. If you can see no other definition, then it seems very odd that everything must have a point connected electrically to the planet.

I can't decide if you are being deliberately obtuse, or not bothering to read what I've written at least once, or simply don't understand.

I don't care that he said "earthed".

He could just as well have said "It has some quirks like unless there's a 0V reference point you can't run the program" and I would still for the life of me not be able to see how that's a quirk.

Please don't keep on trying to insult my intelligence and in the process make yourself look a bigger and bigger fool each time by saying that I think he meant a connection to terra firma, or a cpc.

 

[Monkeh]

E: You know what, I'm not in the mood for any more of an argument. Carry on being you, the rest of us have things to do which don't involve insulting others.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I think that both Monkeh and I have already essentially agreed with you.

Actually no - Monkeh seems determined to continue with the line that I don't understand the difference between a zero volt reference point, which may be termed "ground", a "connection to Earth" and a cpc.

You really don't need to keep repeating your point - which, as so very often, is essentially about semantics.

It seems I do need to, when faced with a wilful refusal by Monkeh to actually read what I have written. Although I admit it does now seem utterly pointless, so blinded is he by whatever desire he has to not do so.

The actual word Eric used is not what I originally asked about when I wondered what I was missing. If in order to work IRL a circuit needs a connection to Earth, or needs to have a point to which all other voltages are referenced, or needs to have one of it's components wrapped in a fluffy pink bow, how on earth can it possibly be considered a quirk to have to tell the simulator where it is connected to Earth, or where the point is to which all other voltages are referenced, or which component is wrapped in a fluffy pink bow, for the simulator to run?

If Eric meant that you have to comprehensively specify to the simulator all the physical parameters which the circuit would need to function for the simulator to function, that's not a quirk, it's to be fully expected.

If he meant that you have to specify to the simulator a parameter which the circuit does not need to function then that's not a quirk, that's a tool which is not fit for purpose.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

E: You know what, I'm not in the mood for any more of an argument. Carry on being you, the rest of us have things to do which don't involve insulting others.

Well - you were the only one flinging insults around until you did that edit.

 

[Monkeh]

I think that both Monkeh and I have already essentially agreed with you.

Actually no - Monkeh seems determined to continue with the line that I don't understand the difference between a zero volt reference point, which may be termed "ground", a "connection to Earth" and a cpc.

... no, I have at no point suggested you don't understand the difference. You do, however, seem not to understand what I'm saying. Perhaps that is my fault. Let me try again.

If someone were to be trained in electrical installations and as such is used to 'ground' literally referring to the ground, the electronic definition of a return path for current, irrespective of reference to a physical point, would be non-intuitive, and having to specify a 'ground' in a circuit which does not need a connection to the earth would seem to be a quirk. If, however, this person happens to be aware of this nomenclature (as we are), there is no quirk to be seen.

Better now?

E: You know what, I'm not in the mood for any more of an argument. Carry on being you, the rest of us have things to do which don't involve insulting others.

Well - you were the only one flinging insults around until you did that edit.

I disagree, but as you are clearly aware, I decided it would be best to remain moderately polite. Apparently I decided slowly.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

... no, I have at no point suggested you don't understand the difference.

Not really, no. We're not talking about a CPC.

'ground' in this context has nothing to do with the big spinning ball under us.

It's only a quirk if you interpret the term 'ground' as a connection to the Earth. If you can see no other definition, then it seems very odd that everything must have a point connected electrically to the planet.

If someone were to be trained in electrical installations and as such is used to 'ground' literally referring to the ground, the electronic definition of a return path for current, irrespective of reference to a physical point, would be non-intuitive, and having to specify a 'ground' in a circuit which does not need a connection to the earth would seem to be a quirk. If, however, this person happens to be aware of this nomenclature (as we are), there is no quirk to be seen.

Better now?

Yes.

And I guess it's been six of one, half a dozen of the other on both sides with us trying to explain to the other what we meant. Also it didn't occur to me that Eric was interpreting having to specify a 'ground' in a circuit which does not need a connection to the earth as having to specify one.

I disagree

I'm sure you do, but without any grounds.

 

[Monkeh]

... no, I have at no point suggested you don't understand the difference.

Not really, no. We're not talking about a CPC.

'ground' in this context has nothing to do with the big spinning ball under us.

It's only a quirk if you interpret the term 'ground' as a connection to the Earth. If you can see no other definition, then it seems very odd that everything must have a point connected electrically to the planet.

'we' being those of us in the discussion, distinct from involving eric, who hasn't returned to the discussion.. I suppose 'you' should have been 'one'? Imprecise language, my fault.

Also it didn't occur to me that Eric was interpreting having to specify a 'ground' in a circuit which does not need a connection to the earth as having to specify one.

That would be the core of the misunderstanding, yes.

I disagree

I'm sure you do, but without any grounds.

I think by now you should be well aware that your definition of insulting, vulgar, and impolite language is entirely different to the rest of the forum, and much of the English-speaking world..


I think at this point we should all take a moment to apologise to RF for taking his thread several pages off the topic and call it a night.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I think by now you should be well aware that your definition of insulting, vulgar, and impolite language is entirely different to the rest of the forum, and much of the English-speaking world..

OK - so by the standards of the rest of the forum, and much of the English-speaking world, where have I been insulting, vulgar or impolite?