Reverse engineering Beano bost

[Banjan73]

Ok. Updated. Hope this one is clearer:

[pacealot]

Not a criticism of your schematic at all, but a query for the community: is there a reason why the most commonly-available Rangemaster schematics are drawn contrary to what I was taught was "correct" procedure for an unambiguously positive ground circuit? That is, ground is ground at the bottom, and power is negative voltage at the top? My understanding is that a "correct" ("accepted practise") RM (in this case, Beano) schematic would appear roughly wie so (pardon my hastily-done Illustrator graphics, and I left out input/output wiring, LED etc. for clarity):




For me, doing all the multiple levels of converting pluses and minuses and grounds and powers in my head while reading some of the common schemos really gives me a headache, and more crucially makes me more likely to hook something up wrong and fry something — not a great scenario for clumsies like me putting together circuits using irreplaceable germanium trannies, for one thing...

[PRR]

> contrary to what I was taught was "correct" procedure

This argument has raged since the first PNP transistors, and will never be resolved.

I do think inconsistent up/down/left/right drawing is rude, loop-de-loops are usually brain-pain.

The image in #21 looks fine to me.

I don't like to comment on style in reverse-engineered drawings. Figuring the connections is too tough to also get a good style. That job can go to some other punter with less access to the device but good OCD.

[PRR]

And then you have Just Plain Wrong:
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Dallas-Rangemaster-schematic_fig3_344362244
(This may be a good paper. And you CAN read it without Joining. But the several + signs contradict the emitter arrow. Painfully for my eye.)

[pacealot]

This argument has raged since the first PNP transistors, and will never be resolved.

Thank you Paul — I didn't realise I'd bumbled my way into yet another controversy! 

It did seem odd that many of the staple PNP Ge fuzzes of yesteryore — FFs, Benders of multiple Mks, FZ-1-family, and so on — have been routinely drawn and re-drawn with the seemingly "conventional" negative-power-up-top, positive-ground-down-below trope, and yet so many RMs are drawn "upside down", or with negative ground shown at the top and positive 9V at the bottom, or (as you demonstrated!) Just Plain Wrong. Yeah, that's some magical blue germanium smoke waiting to get released if someone isn't careful.

[Banjan73]

Not a criticism of your schematic at all, but a query for the community: is there a reason why the most commonly-available Rangemaster schematics are drawn contrary to what I was taught was "correct" procedure for an unambiguously positive ground circuit? That is, ground is ground at the bottom, and power is negative voltage at the top? My understanding is that a "correct" ("accepted practise") RM (in this case, Beano) schematic would appear roughly wie so (pardon my hastily-done Illustrator graphics, and I left out input/output wiring, LED etc. for clarity):




For me, doing all the multiple levels of converting pluses and minuses and grounds and powers in my head while reading some of the common schemos really gives me a headache, and more crucially makes me more likely to hook something up wrong and fry something — not a great scenario for clumsies like me putting together circuits using irreplaceable germanium trannies, for one thing...

Whats up and down on our planet earth? Some say that the earth is flat, but then again, whats up and down? Which way does the current in a circuit go? From + to - or from - to +?
It`s all a matter of definition.
The reason that I draw my circuit like this is because that I am used to work with positive on top and ground at bottom. But I can see your frustration here, hehe.

[amptramp]

Whats up and down on our planet earth? Some say that the earth is flat, but then again, whats up and down? Which way does the current in a circuit go? From + to - or from - to +?
It`s all a matter of definition.
The reason that I draw my circuit like this is because that I am used to work with positive on top and ground at bottom. But I can see your frustration here, hehe.

Of course the earth is flat.  70% of the surface of the earth is water.  The water is not carbonated.  Therefore the earth is flat.

[Banjan73]

Of course the earth is flat.  70% of the surface of the earth is water.  The water is not carbonated.  Therefore the earth is flat.

Hehe. Ok. But what is up and down on this pancake if you, for instance are standing on top or on bottom of the moon (and whats up and down on the moon?)?

[Banjan73]

Maybe we walk upside down on this flat earth of ours, without knowing it?

[duck_arse]

Maybe we walk upside down on this flat earth of ours, without knowing it?

careful what you say, I'm australian.

no matter how useful OCD actually is, it seems you just can't teach it. well, not properly, anyway.