| ??? 04/17/05 20:33 Read: times |
#91786 - clarification Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Michael Karas said:
Oh I see. You thought that I made a PCB layout. HaHa No I just thought you were being extremly clever to try and make the schematic illustrate PCB traces at the same time. Evidently you were not. Sorry. When you said that you argued to a different class of marks on an EE exam do you mean that you agrued for and got a better score on the exam? If so please tell us first why the instructor tried to give you a weak score for making a cross over connection. And then tell us what your successful line of reasoning was that led to the "improved" score. It would take me drawing the diagram, but it was a circuit diagram of a voltage source/diode network, with three parallel circuits drawn with a joined crossover as you just demonstrated. Everyone automatically assumed there was a four-way joint,
|----
-----------
|----
despite its poor printing. My (successful) argument was, that since the diagram was not shown in accordance with British Standards, the joint could not be assumed. In the end the lecturer agreed, and promoted my mark for the question. Sadly he didn't condemn the marks for everyone else for making assumptions. Steve |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| SPST switch | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Just a single switch ? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Yes, but... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| No worries | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Clear now. | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Keypad | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Realisation | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| For what it's worth | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| symbol | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| My take is a repeat | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I see what you mean but. | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| You are missing something... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| No | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I gave a schematic not PCB layout | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
clarification | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Inside the ITT Tact Switch | 01/01/70 00:00 |